Skip to main content
Log in

Genetic Counseling for Personal Genomic Testing: Optimizing Client Uptake of Post-Test Telephonic Counseling Services

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Journal of Genetic Counseling

Abstract

The field of genetic counseling faces a broad challenge: many potential clients may not be aware of the value and benefit of genetic counseling services, and therefore may not utilize those services. Navigenics is a personal genomic testing company that provides telephonic genetic counseling services for multifactorial diseases and pharmacogenetics. When first offered in 2008, utilization of the Navigenics genetic counseling service was less than expected. To explore the basis for under-utilization and potential mechanisms for increasing uptake, Navigenics initiated a quality improvement study, in which three different methods of engaging clients in the uptake of genetic counseling services were assessed over the course of 1 year. Outcomes showed significant differences in uptake rates between methodologies (7.5%, 24.6%, and 60.1%), yielding an 8-fold increase in service utilization when post-test telephonic outreach to all clients was performed. Further, utilization spanned all risk levels based on client results, evidence that not only clients with high-risk results were motivated to engage in the genetic counseling service. This research indicates that implementing strategies to educate clients about genetic counseling can positively impact client engagement and utilization of available services.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bloss, C. S., Schork, N. J., & Topol, E. J. (2011). Effect of direct-to-consumer genomewide profiling to assess disease risk. New England Journal of Medicine, 364, 524–534.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Christiaans, I., Birnie, E., Bonsel, G. J., Wilde, A. A., & van Langen, I. M. (2008). Uptake of genetic counselling and predictive DNA testing in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. European Journal of Human Genetics, 16, 1201–1207.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Codori, A. M., Petersen, G. M., Miglioretti, D. L., Larkin, E. K., Bushey, M. T., Young, C., et al. (1999). Attitudes toward colon cancer gene testing: factors predicting test uptake. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention, 8, 345–351.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cornel, M. C., van Essen, A. J., & ten Kate, L. P. (1992). Comparison of couples referred and not referred for genetic counselling in a genetic clinic after the birth of a child with a congenital anomaly: A study in a population in the northeastern Netherlands. American Journal of Medical Genetics, 42, 387–392.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Geer, K. P., Ropka, M. E., Cohn, W. F., Jones, S. M., & Miesfeldt, S. (2001). Factors influencing patients’ decisions to decline cancer genetic counseling services. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 10, 25–40.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Glynn, A., Collins, V., & Halliday, J. (2009). Utilization of genetic counseling after diagnosis of a birth defect – trends over time and variables associated with utilization. Genetics in Medicine, 11(4), 287–293.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Halliday, J., Griffin, O., Bankier, A., Rose, C., & Riley, M. (1997). Use of record linkage between a statewide genetics service and a Birth Defects/Congenital Malformations Register to determine use of genetic counselling services. American Journal of Medical Genetics, 72, 3–10.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kieran, S., Loescher, L. J., & Lim, K. H. (2007). The role of financial factors in acceptance of clinical BRCA genetic testing. Genetic Testing, 11, 101–110.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kladny, B., Gettig, E. A., & Krishnamurti, L. (2005). Systematic follow-up and case management of the abnormal newborn screen can improve acceptance of genetic counseling for sickle cell or other hemoglobinopathy trait. Genetics in Medicine, 7, 139–142.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lerman, C., Hughes, C., Trock, B. J., Myers, R. E., Main, D., Bonney, A., et al. (1999). Genetic testing in families with hereditary nonpolyposis colon cancer. Journal of the American Medical Association, 281, 1618–1622.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • O’Neill, S. M., Peters, J. A., Vogel, V. G., Feingold, E., & Rubinstein, W. S. (2006). Referral to cancer genetic counseling: are there stages of readiness? American Journal of Medical Genetics, 142C, 221–231.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Disclosure of Interest

All contributing authors have consented to the publication of this material, they have full control of all primary data and they agree to allow the journal to review the data if requested. All of the authors were employed by Navigenics, Inc. either as full-time employees or part-time contractors at the time of manuscript submission.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elissa Levin.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Out-of-range results criteria

The criteria below represent potential range of results released through the Navigenics testing service that the clinical staff deemed high-risk. The assessment that these results were considered significant resulted from a review by the Navigenics clinical and science staff, as well as external subject matter advisors. Considerations included the potential statistical significance of a specific result (for example, a result indicating a client’s genetic risk was in a top centile in comparison with the reference population), the potential risk for psychosocial impact based on professional clinical experience (for example, conditions with broad patient awareness or those that may not have proven prevention measures), as well as the potential impact of the combined set of results (for example, multiple elevated genetic risks for conditions). Clients identified for GC outreach during Phase 2 needed to meet at least one of these criteria.

  • Homozygosity for APOE e4/e4

  • Elevated risk for multiple sclerosis (>90th percentile)

  • Any individual result yielding greater than 60% estimated lifetime risk

  • Above population average risk for more than two types of cancer

  • Greater than eight above average results

  • Any genotyping no-calls (one of the assayed markers in the polygenic risk model did not meet quality metrics, requiring repeat testing in the CLIA lab)

Appendix 2: Conditions included in the testing service during the trial

Abdominal aortic aneurysm

Alzheimer’s disease, late onset

Atrial fibrillation

Breast cancer (females)

Celiac disease

Cerebral aneurysm

Colorectal cancer

Crohn’s disease

Deep vein thrombosis*

Diabetes, type 2

Gastric cancer

Glaucoma, exfoliating type

Graves disease

Hemochromatosis*

Lactose intolerance*

Lung cancer

Macular degeneration

Melanoma*

Myocardial infarction

Multiple sclerosis

Obesity

Osteoarthritis

Prostate cancer (males)

Psoriasis

Restless leg syndrome

Rheumatoid arthritis

Sarcoidosis*

Systemic lupus erythematosus

* Condition added to the testing panel in November 2009

Appendix 3: Sample outreach phone and email scripts

Phone script:

Hello, my name is [name of GC] and I am one of the genetic counselors at Navigenics. Recently you received your genetic results report, and I am calling to arrange your complimentary genetic counseling phone consultation. As genetic experts, we can help answer any questions you may have about understanding your results, and put your results in context with your family history. To arrange a convenient time to speak with us, please call our Member Services at 1-866-522-1585, M-F, 9 am-5 pm PT.

Email script:

Subject line: Schedule your complimentary genetic counseling session with Navigenics!

Dear [Client name],

Now that you have received your Navigenics results report, I wanted to remind you that Navigenics has board-certified genetic counselors who are available to help answer any questions you may have about your results.

As healthcare professionals who specialize in genetics, we can help make sure that you understand your results and how to best make use of the information. Some questions we commonly hear are:

  • I seem to have many conditions with an increased risk—where do I focus?

  • I am concerned about a specific condition for which I seem to have a high risk—what does this mean?

  • What do I do next now that I have my results?

  • How do my personal and family history fit into this?

To arrange a convenient time to speak with us, please call our Member Services at 1-866-522-1585, M-F, 9 am-5 pm PT.

Be assured that all of our conversations are strictly confidential. Learn more about our genetic counselors [link to GC information on Navigenics website].

Best wishes,

[Genetic counselor signature]

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Levin, E., Riordan, S., Klein, J. et al. Genetic Counseling for Personal Genomic Testing: Optimizing Client Uptake of Post-Test Telephonic Counseling Services. J Genet Counsel 21, 462–468 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-012-9496-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-012-9496-8

Keywords

Navigation