Advertisement

Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health

, Volume 21, Issue 2, pp 434–437 | Cite as

Current Approaches to Cancer Genetic Counseling Services for Spanish-Speaking Patients

  • Bianca Augusto
  • Monica L. Kasting
  • Fergus J. Couch
  • Noralane M. Lindor
  • Susan T. VadaparampilEmail author
Brief Communication

Abstract

Barriers to genetic counseling services (GCS) utilization for Spanish-speaking patients (SSP) may include language barriers and limited availability of bilingual genetic counselors (GCs). The sample included GCs who: (1) practice cancer genetic counseling, (2) report a cancer practice setting, and (3) have a US mailing address. We assessed: (1) number of Spanish-speaking GCs, (2) estimated proportion of Hispanic patients, and (3) approaches used to counsel SSP. Of respondents (n = 229), 10% (n = 23) spoke Spanish. A higher proportion of GCs practicing in states with ≥ 25% Hispanics reported speaking Spanish compared to those in states with lower Hispanic populations (p = 0.02). While there was a significantly higher percentage of Spanish-speaking GCs in states with larger Hispanic populations, the absolute number was low and unlikely to meet the needs of patients. There is need to increase availability of GCS for SSPs and to understand the impact of services on patient health outcomes.

Keywords

BRCA Breast cancer Genetic counseling Hereditary cancer Spanish-speaking patients 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Breast Cancer Spore CA 116201 and in part by the Survey Methods Core Facility at the H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute; a National Cancer Institute designated Comprehensive Cancer Center (P30-CA76292).

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

Author Vadaparampil has a research grant from Myriad Genetics Laboratories. Authors Augusto, Lindor, and Couch declare no conflicts of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in this study.

References

  1. 1.
    DeSantis C, Ma J, Bryan L, Jemal A. Breast cancer statistics, 2013. CA Cancer J Clin. 2014;64(1):52–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Parise CA, Caggiano V. The influence of socioeconomic status on racial/ethnic disparities among the ER/PR/HER2 breast cancer subtypes. J Cancer Epidemiol 2015. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/813456 Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wideroff L, Thomas Vadaparampil S, Breen N, Croyle RT, Freedman AN. Awareness of genetic testing for increased cancer risk in the year 2000 National Health Interview Survey. Public Health Genomics. 2003;6(3):147–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Levy DE, Byfield SD, Comstock CB, Garber JE, Syngal S, Crown WH, SHields AE. Underutilization of BRCA1/2 testing to guide breast cancer treatment: black and Hispanic women particularly at risk. Genet Med. 2011;13(4):349–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kinney AY, Gammon A, Coxworth J, Simonsen SE, Arce-Laretta M. Exploring attitudes, beliefs, and communication preferences of Latino community members regarding BRCA1/2 mutation testing and preventive strategies. Genet Med. 2010;12(2):105–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Augusto BM, Lake P, Scherr CL, Couch FJ, Lindor NM, Vadaparampil ST. From the laboratory to the clinic: sharing BRCA VUS reclassification tools with practicing genetics professionals. J Community Genet 2017. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12687-017-0343-3 Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Scherr CL, Lindor NM, Malo TL, Couch FJ, Vadaparampil ST. Genetic counselors’ practices and confidence regarding variant of uncertain significance results and reclassification from BRCA testing. Clin Genet. 2015;88(6):523–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Andrus MR, Roth MT. Health literacy: a review. Pharmacotherapy. 2002;22(3):282–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lee E, Maxwel A, Baty BJ, Roter D, Dudley WN, Kinney AY. Genetic counseling communication with an African American BRCA1 kindred. Soc Sci Med. 2007;64(3):724–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Karliner LS, Jacobs EA, Chen AH, Mutha S. Do professional interpreters improve clinical care for patients with limited English proficiency? A systematic review of the literature. Health Serv Res. 2007;42(2):727–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bianca Augusto
    • 1
  • Monica L. Kasting
    • 1
  • Fergus J. Couch
    • 2
  • Noralane M. Lindor
    • 3
  • Susan T. Vadaparampil
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Division of Population ScienceMoffitt Cancer CenterTampaUSA
  2. 2.Department of Laboratory Medicine and PathologyMayo ClinicRochesterUSA
  3. 3.Department of Health Sciences ResearchMayo ClinicScottsdaleUSA

Personalised recommendations