Barriers in Identification and Referral to Genetic Counseling for Familial Cancer Risk: The Perspective of Genetic Service Providers
- 331 Downloads
The purpose of this study was to obtain genetic counselors’ perspectives about the identification of appropriate patients and barriers to referral of high-risk patients for cancer genetic counseling services. Genetic service providers from eight integrated health systems were surveyed. Data analysis included descriptive statistics. Twenty-eight of 40 potential participants responded (70%). Referrals for familial cancer risk assessment overwhelmingly came from providers (89%); only 10% were self-referrals. Use of guidelines to assist providers with referral was reported by 46% of the respondents. Genetic service providers perceived patient barriers to seeking genetic counseling after referral included: risk evaluation viewed as a non-priority (72%), concerns about impact on insurability (52%), distance to appointments (48%), lack of insurance (44%), lack of patient/provider knowledge about the value of genetic counseling (36%), discouragement by family members (28%), and fear (20%). The best approaches suggested by respondents to increase appropriate referrals were attending meetings and giving presentations to oncologists, surgeons, primary care and gynecologists. The genetic service providers reported several barriers to the referral and use of genetic counseling. This finding is consistent with current literature from the providers’ perspective. Our survey adds the genetic service providers’ perspective and identifies areas of opportunity for further research and intervention as few of the perceived barriers are being addressed through current educational efforts.
KeywordsGenetic counseling Genetic predisposition to disease Genetic screening Neoplasms Referral and consultation
This study was funded by the National Cancer Institute, contract 5U19 CA079689, “Increasing the Effectiveness of Cancer Control Interventions” (Edward H. Wagner, MD, MPH, Principal Investigator), which provides financial support for the HMO Cancer Research Network (CRN). We want to acknowledge the members of the CRN Family History Scientific Interest Group who contributed to the conceptual design of this project and/or provided input on this manuscript, particularly Andrea F. Patenaude, PhD from the Dana Farber Cancer Institute (Boston, MA). We also want to thank the genetics professionals who participated in the survey. The corresponding author may be contacted to request a copy of the full survey.
Confict of Interest
- (2009a). Colon Cancer. NCNN clinical practice guidelines in oncology (NCCN GuidelinesTM) Retrieved March 3, 2009, from www.nccn.org.
- (2009b). Recommendations from the EGAPP Working Group: genetic testing strategies in newly diagnosed individuals with colorectal cancer aimed at reducing morbidity and mortality from Lynch syndrome in relatives. Genetics in Medicine, 11, 35–41Google Scholar
- Allegra, C. J., Jessup, J. M., Somerfield, M. R., Hamilton, S. R., Hammond, E. H., Hayes, D. F., et al. (2009). American Society of Clinical Oncology provisional clinical opinion: testing for KRAS gene mutations in patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma to predict response to anti-epidermal growth factor receptor monoclonal antibody therapy. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 27, 2091–2096.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- American Cancer Society. (2006). Minnesota cancer facts and figures 2006. Mendota Heights, American Cancer Society, Midwest Division.Google Scholar
- Calzone, K. A., Prindiville, S. A., Jourkiv, O., Jenkins, J., DeCarvalho, M., Wallerstedt, D. B., et al. (2005). Randomized comparison of group versus individual genetic education and counseling for familial breast and/or ovarian cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 23, 3455–3464.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Johnson, B. M. (2007). Personal communication—unpublished data based on a health plan examination of family history dataGoogle Scholar
- Khoury, M. J., Gwinn, M., Yoon, P. W., Dowling, N., Moore, C. A., & Bradley, L. (2007). The continuum of translation research in genomic medicine: how can we accelerate the appropriate integration of human genome discoveries into health care and disease prevention? Genetics in Medicine, 9, 665–674.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Morgan, D. L. (1988). Focus groups and qualitative research. Newberry Park: Sage.Google Scholar
- Office of the Surgeon General. (2009a). Surgeon General’s family health history initiative. Retrieved November 19, 2009, from http://www.hhs.gov/familyhistory/.
- Office of the Surgeon General. (2009b). Surgeon General’s new family health history tool is released, ready for “21st century medicine”. Retrieved September 10, 2009, from http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2009pres/01/20090113a.html.
- Oregon Evidence-based Practice Center and U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. (2005). Genetic risk assessment and BRCA mutation testing for breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility: Evidence Synthesis. Number 37. Retrieved August 11, 2009, from http://www.ahrq.gov/Clinic/uspstf/uspsbrgen.htm.
- Ramsey, S. D., Burke, W., Pinsky, L., Clarke, L., Newcomb, P., & Khoury, M. J. (2005). Family history assessment to detect increased risk for colorectal cancer: conceptual considerations and a preliminary economic analysis. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev, 14, 2494–2500.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- SAS Institute. (2006). Base SAS 9.1.3 procedures guide. Cary: SAS Institute, Inc.Google Scholar
- Silverman, D. (1993). Interpreting qualitative data: Methods for analysing talk, text and interaction. London: Sage.Google Scholar
- Wagner, E. H., Greene, S. M., Hart, G., Field, T. S., Fletcher, S., Geiger, A. M., et al. (2005). Building a research consortium of large health systems: the Cancer Research Network. Journal of the National Cancer Institute Monographs, 3–11Google Scholar