Skip to main content

Preparing individuals to communicate genetic test results to their relatives: report of a randomized control trial

Familial Cancer volume 12, pages 537–546 (2013)Cite this article

Abstract

This study reports a randomized clinical trial evaluating the efficacy of an intervention to prepare individuals to communicate BRCA1/BRCA2 results to family members. Women aged 18 years and older, who had genetic testing, and who had adult first-degree relatives, were randomly assigned to a communication skills-building intervention or a wellness control session. Primary outcomes were the percentage of probands sharing test results, and the level of distress associated with sharing. The ability of the theory of planned behavior variables to predict the outcomes was explored. Four hundred twenty-two women were enrolled in the study, 219 (intervention) and 203 (control). Data from 137 in the intervention group and 112 in the control group were analyzed. Two hundred forty-nine probands shared test results with 838 relatives (80.1 %). There were no significant differences between study groups in the primary outcomes. Combining data from both arms revealed that perceived control and specific social influence were associated with sharing. Probands were more likely to share genetic test results with their children, female relatives and relatives who they perceived had a favorable opinion about learning the results. The communication skills intervention did not impact sharing of test results. The proband’s perception of her relative’s opinion of genetic testing and her sense of control in relaying this information influenced sharing. Communication of test results is selective, with male relatives and parents less likely to be informed. Prevalent psychosocial factors play a role in the communication of genetic test results within families.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

43,34 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  1. American Society of Clinical Oncology (2003) Policy statement update: genetic testing for cancer susceptibility. J Clin Oncol 21:2397–2406

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Patenaude AF, Dorval M, DiGianni LS, Schneider KA, Chittenden A, Garber JE (2006) Sharing BRCA1/2 test results with first-degree relatives: factors predicting who women tell. J Clin Oncol 24:700–706

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Wilson BJ, Forrest K, van Teijlingen ER et al (2004) Family communication about genetic risk: the little that is known. Community Genet 7:15–24

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. McKinnon W, Naud S, Ashikaga T, Colletti R, Wood M (2007) Results of an intervention for individuals and families with BRCA mutations: a model for providing medical updates and psychosocial support following genetic testing. J Genet Couns 16:433–456

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Smith KR, West JA, Croyle RT, Botkin JR (1999) Familial context of genetic testing for cancer susceptibility: moderating effect of siblings’ test results on psychological distress one to two weeks after BRCA1 mutation testing. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 8:385–392

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Green J, Richards M, Murton F, Statham H, Hallowell N (1997) Family communication and genetic counseling: the case of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. J Genet Couns 6:45–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Landsbergen K, Verhaak C, Kraaimaat F, Hoogerbrugge N (2005) Genetic uptake in BRCA-mutation families is related to emotional and behavioral communication characteristics of index patients. Fam Cancer 4:115–119

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Hughes C, Lerman C, Schwartz M et al (2002) All in the family: evaluation of the process and content of sisters’ communication about BRCA1 and BRCA2 genetic test results. Am J Med Genet 107:143–150

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Julian-Reynier C, Eisinger F, Chabal F et al (2000) Disclosure to the family of breast/ovarian cancer genetic test results: patient’s willingness and associated factors. Am J Med Genet 94:13–18

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Tercyak KP, Lerman C, Peshkin BN et al (2001) Effects of coping style and BRCA1 and BRCA2 test results on anxiety among women participating in genetic counseling and testing for breast and ovarian cancer risk. Health Psychol 20:217–222

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Kodl MM, Lee JW, Matthews AK, Cummings SA, Olopade OI (2006) Correlates of depressive symptoms among women seeking cancer genetic counseling and risk assessment at a high-risk cancer clinic. J Genet Couns 15:267–276

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Koehly LM, Peterson SK, Watts BG, Kempf KK, Vernon SW, Gritz ER (2003) A social network analysis of communication about hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer genetic testing and family functioning. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 12:304–313

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Peterson SK (2005) The role of the family in genetic testing: theoretical perspectives, current knowledge, and future directions. Health Educ Behav 32:627–639

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. MacDonald DJ, Sarna L, Uman GC, Grant M, Weitzel JN (2006) Cancer screening and risk-reducing behaviors of women seeking genetic cancer risk assessment for breast and ovarian cancers. Oncol Nurs Forum 33:E27–E35

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Barsevick AM, Montgomery SV, Ruth K et al (2008) Intention to communicate BRCA1/BRCA2 genetic test results to the family. J Fam Psychol 22:303–312

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Buckman R (1992) How to break bad news, a guide for health care professionals. The John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore

    Google Scholar 

  17. Daly MB, Barsevick A, Miller SM et al (2001) Communicating genetic test results to the family: a six-step, skills-building strategy. Fam Community Health 24:13–26

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Ajzen A, Fishbein M (1980) Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs

    Google Scholar 

  19. Ajzen I (2002) Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, focus of control, and the theory of planned behavior. J Appl Soc Psychol 32:665–683

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Lierman LM, Young HM, Kasprzyk D, Benoliel JQ (1990) Predicting breast self-examination using the theory of reasoned action. Nurs Res 39:97–101

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Park HS, Smith SW (2007) Distinctiveness and influence of subjective norms, personal descriptive and injunctive norms, and societal descriptive and injunctive norms on behavioral intent: a case of two behaviors critical to organ donation. Hum Commun Res 33:194–218

    Google Scholar 

  22. Weiss D, Marmar C (1997) Assessing psychological trauma and PTSD—the impact of event scale-revised. Guildford, New York

    Google Scholar 

  23. Miller SM (1987) Monitoring and blunting: validation of a questionnaire to assess styles of information seeking under threat. J Pers Soc Psychol 52:345–353

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Eaton W, Smith C, Ybarra M, Muntaner C, Tien A (2004) The use of psychological testing for treatment planning and outcomes assessment, 3rd edn. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Mahwah

    Google Scholar 

  25. Finlay E, Stopfer JE, Burlingame E et al (2008) Factors determining dissemination of results and uptake of genetic testing in families with known BRCA1/2 mutations. Genet Test 12:81–91

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. McGivern B, Everett J, Yager GG, Baumiller RC, Hafertepen A, Saal HM (2004) Family communication about positive BRCA1 and BRCA2 genetic test results. Genet Med 6:503–509

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Roshanai AH, Rosenquist R, Lampic C, Nordin K (2009) Does enhanced information at cancer genetic counseling improve counselees’ knowledge, risk percetion, satisfaction and negotiation of information to at-risk relatives? Acta Oncol 48:999–1009

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Forrest LE, Curnow L, Delatycki MB, Skene L, Aitken MA (2008) Health first, genetics second: exploring families’ experiences of communicating genetic information. Eur J Hum Genet 16:1329–1335

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Nycum G, Avard D, Knoppers BM (2009) Factors influencing intrafamilial communication of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer genetic information. Eur J Hum Genet 17(7):872–880

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Afifi WA, Morgan SE, Stephenson MT et al (2006) Examining the decision to talk with family about organ donation: applying theory of motivated information management. Commun Monogr 73:188–215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Jennings-Dozier K (1999) Predicting intentions to obtain a pap smear among African American and Latina women: testing the theory of planned behavior. Nurs Res 48:198–205

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Jemmott LS, Jemmott JB 3rd (1991) Applying the theory of reasoned action to AIDS risk behavior: condom use among black women. Nurs Res 40:228–234

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Nordin K, Bjork J, Berglund G (2004) Factors influencing intention to obtain a genetic test for a hereditary disease in an affected group and in the general public. Prev Med 39:1107–1114

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Johnston DW, Johnston M, Pollard B, Kinmonth AL, Mant D (2004) Motivation is not enough: prediction of risk behavior following diagnosis of coronary heart disease from the theory of planned behavior. Health Psychol 23:533–538

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Tolma EL, Reininger BM, Ureda J, Evans A (2003) Cognitive motivations associated with screening mammography in Cyprus. Prev Med 36:363–373

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Sheeran P, Conner M, Norman P (2001) Can the theory of planned behavior explain patterns of health behavior change? Health Psychol 20:12–19

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Armitage CJ, Norman P, Conner M (2002) Can the theory of planned behaviour mediate the effects of age, gender and multidimensional health locus of control? Br J Health Psychol 7:299–316

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Fishbein M, Ajzen I (2005) Theory-based behavior change interventions: comments on Hobbis and Sutton. J Health Psychol 10:27–31; discussion 7–43

    Google Scholar 

  39. Kuwabara SA, Van Voorhees BW, Gollan JK, Alexander GC (2007) A qualitative exploration of depression in emerging adulthood: disorder, development, and social context. Gen Hosp Psychiatry 29:317–324

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Smith M, Calam R, Bolton C (2009) Psychological factors linked to self-reported depression symptoms in late adolescence. Behav Cogn Psychother 37:73–85

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Daly MB (2009) The impact of social roles on the experience of men in BRCA1/2 families: implications for counseling. J Genet Couns 18:42–48

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Cheung EL, Olson AD, Yu TM, Han PZ, Beattie MS (2010) Communication of BRCA results and family testing in 1,103 high-risk women. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 19(9):2211–2219

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Finlay E, Stopfer JE, Burlingame E (2008) Factors determining dissemination of results and uptake of genetic testing in families with known BRCA1/2 mutations. Genet Test 12(1):91–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Vos J, Jansen AM, Menko F, van Asperen CJ, Stiggelbout AM, Tibben A (2011) Family communication matters: the impact of telling relatives about unclassified variants and uninformative DNA-test results. Genet Med 13(4):333–341

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We are indebted to the patients who participated in the study. We thank Irene Angel, Joanne Spoltore and our Partner Hospital affiliates for their assistance in recruitment and data collection, and Lorraine Crozier and Susan Steinberg for their invaluable assistance in manuscript preparation. Two grants from the National Cancer Institute, R01 CA81867 and P30 CA00692, provided funding for this study.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Department of Clinical Genetics, Fox Chase Cancer Center, 333 Cottman Avenue, Philadelphia, PA, 19111, USA

    Susan V. Montgomery, Ruth Bingler & Mary B. Daly

  2. Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA, 19111, USA

    Suzanne M. Miller

  3. Biostatistics Core, Fox Chase Cancer Center, 333 Cottman Avenue, Philadelphia, PA, 19111, USA

    Brian L. Egleston & Karen Ruth

  4. American Infrastructure, 1805 Berks Road, Worcester, PA, 19490, USA

    John Malick

  5. Reading Hospital Regional Cancer Center, South Sixth Avenue and Spruce Street, Reading, PA, 19611, USA

    Terrence P. Cescon

  6. Deparment of Medical Oncology, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, 19107, USA

    Andrea M. Barsevick

Authors
  1. Susan V. Montgomery
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Andrea M. Barsevick
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Brian L. Egleston
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ruth Bingler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Karen Ruth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Suzanne M. Miller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. John Malick
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Terrence P. Cescon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Mary B. Daly
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mary B. Daly.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Montgomery, S.V., Barsevick, A.M., Egleston, B.L. et al. Preparing individuals to communicate genetic test results to their relatives: report of a randomized control trial. Familial Cancer 12, 537–546 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10689-013-9609-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10689-013-9609-z

Keywords

  • Genetic testing
  • BRCA1/2
  • Family communication
  • Theory of planned behavior
  • Social pressure