The CEGRM was initially conceived as a simple, concise, visual representation of the social interaction domains of information, tangible services and emotional exchanges (Kenen, R., & Peters, J. (2001). J Genet Counsel, 10, 289–309). A blend of the genetic pedigree, genogram, and ecomap, the CEGRM was developed to facilitate contemporary genetic counseling goals. An exploratory pilot study of 20 subjects showed that it was feasible, comfortable and efficiently accomplished, and that the process was useful both for assessment and as an intervention with study participants (Peters, J. A., Kenen, R., Giusti, R., Loud, J., Weissman, N., & Greene, M. H. (2004). Am J Med Genet Part A, 130A, 258–264). Subsequently, we have extended the CEGRM to 150 women from hereditary breast/ovarian cancer (HBOC) families; three different investigators have successfully administered this tool. The preliminary findings from the exploratory study were confirmed in the larger sample. Engaging in the interactive, insight-promoting CEGRM process provides a novel tool for assessing the social context of genetic testing, and helping high-risk women better understand and integrate genetic information into their personal and family identities, health beliefs, and decisions.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
Bennett, R. L. (1999). The Practical Guide to the Genetic Family History. New York: Wiley-Liss.
Bennett, R. L., Steinhaus, K. A., Uhrich, S. B., O’Sullivan, C. K., Resta, R. G., Lochner-Doyle, D., et al. (1995). Recommendations for standardized human pedigree nomenclature. Am J Hum Genet, 56, 745–752.
Bowen, D. J., Patenaude, A. F., & Vernon, S. W. (2001). Psychosocial issues in cancer genetics: from the laboratory to the public. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev, 8, 326–328.
Bowen, D. J., Bourcier, E., Press, N., Lewis, F. M., & Burke, W. (2004). Effects of individual and family functioning on interest in genetic testing. Commu Genet, 7, 25–32.
Braithwaite, D., Emery, J., Walter, F., Prevost, A. T., & Sutton, S. (2004). Psychological impact of genetic counseling for familial cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Natl Cancer Inst, 96, 122–133.
Broadstock, M., Michie, S., & Marteau, T. (2000). Psychological consequences of predictive genetic testing: a systematic review. Eur J Hum Genet, 8, 731–738.
d’Agincourt-Canning, L. (2001). Experiences of genetic risk: Disclosure and the gendering of responsibility. Bioethics, 15, 231–247.
Daly, M., Farmer, J., Harrop-Stein, C., Montgomery, S., Itzen, M., Costalas, J. W., et al. (1999). Exploring family relationships in cancer risk counseling using the genogram. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev, 8, 393–398.
De Maria, R., Weeks, G., & Hof, L. (1999). Focused Genograms: Intergenerational Assessment of Individuals, Couples, and Families. Philadelphia: Brunner/Mazel.
Dunn, A., & Dawes, S. (1999). Spiritually focused genograms: Keys to uncovering spiritual resources in African American families. J Multicult Counse Dev, 27, 240–254.
Easton, D. F., Ford, D., & Bishop, D. T. a. t. B. C. L. C. (1995). Breast and ovarian cancer incidence in BRCA1-mutation carriers. Am J Hum Genet, 56, 265–217.
Egnew, T. R. (2005). The meaning of healing: Transcending suffering. Ann Fam Med, 3, 255–262.
Eunpu, D. L. (1997). Systematically-based psychotherapeutic techniques in genetic counseling. J Genet Counsel, 6, 1–20.
Ford, D., Easton, D. F., Stratton, M., et al. (1998). Genetic heterogeneity and penetrance analysis of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes in breast cancer families. Am J Hum Genet, 62, 676–689.
Forrest, K., Simpson, S. A., Wilson, B. J., van Teijlingen, E. R., Mckee, L., Haites, N., et al. (2003). To tell or not to tell: barriers and facilitators in family communication about genetic risk. Clin Genet, 64, 317–326.
Gordon, C., Riess, H., & Waldinger, R. (2005). The formulation as a collaborative conversation. Harvard Rev Psychiat, 13, 112–124.
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.
Guttmacher, A. E., Jenkins, J., & Uhlmann, W. R. (2001). Genomic medicine: Who will practice it? A call to open arms. Am J Med Genet, 106, 216–222.
Hallowell, N., Foster, C., Eeles, R., Ardern-Jones, A., & Watson, M. (2004). Accommodating risk: Responses to BRCA1/2 genetic testing of women who have had cancer. Soc Sci Med, 59, 553–565.
Hartman, A. (1978). Diagramatic assessment of family relationships. Soc Casework, 59, 465–476.
Hartmann, L. C., Degnim, A., & Schaid, D. J. (2004). Prophylactic Mastectomy for BRCA1/2 Carriers: Progress and More Questions. J Clin Oncol, 22, 981–983.
Hodge, D. R. (2000). Spiritual ecomaps: a new diagrammatic tool for assessing marital and family spirituality. J Marital Fam Ther, 26, 217–228.
Kayser, K., Sormanti, M., & Strainchamps, E. (1999). Women coping with cancer: the influence of relationship factors in psychosocial adjustment. Psychol Women Quart, 23, 725–739.
Kenen, R., Ardern-Jones, A., & Eeles, R. (2004). We are talking, but are they listening? Communication patterns in families with a history of breast/Ovarian cancer (HBOC). Psycho-Oncol, 13, 335–345.
Kenen, R., Arden-Jones, A., & Eeles, R. (2004). Healthy women from suspected hereditary breast and ovarian cancer families: the significant others in their lives. Eur J Cancer Care, 13, 169–179.
Kenen, R., & Peters, J. (2001). The colored, eco-genetic relationship map (CEGRM): A conceptual approach and tool for genetic counseling research. J Genet Counsel, 10, 289–309.
Knox, S., Catlin, L., Casper, M., & Schlosser, L. Z. (2005). Addressing religion and spirituality in psychotherapy: clients’ perspectives. Psychother Res, 15, 287–303.
Koehly, L. M., Peterson, S. K., Watts, B. G., Kempf, K. K., Vernon, S. W., & Gritz, E. R. (2003). A Social Network Analysis of Communication about Hereditary Nonpolyposis Colorectal Cancer Genetic Testing and Family Functioning. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev, 12, 304–313.
Kramer, J. L., Velazquez, I. A., Chen, B. E., Rosenberg, P. S., Struewing, J. P., & Greene, M. H. (2005). Prophylactic Oophorectomy Reduces Breast Cancer Penetrance During Prospective, Long-Term Follow-Up of BRCA1 Mutation Carriers. J Clin Oncol, 23, 8629–8635.
Lerman, C., Narod, S., Schulman, K., Hughes, C., Gomez-Caminero, A., Bonney, G., et al. (1996). BRCA1 testing in families with hereditary breast-ovarian cancer. A prospective study of patient decision making and outcomes [see comments]. JAMA, 275, 1885–92.
Lugton, J. (1997). The nature of social support as experienced by women treated for breast cancer. J Adv Nurs, 25, 1184–1191.
McDaniel, S. H. (2005). The psychotherapy of genetics. Fam Process, 44, 25–44.
McDaniel, S. H., Hepworth, J., & Doherty, W. J. (1992). Medical Family Therapy: A Biopsychosocial Approach to Families with Health Problems. New York, NY: Basic Books, Harper Collins.
McGoldrick, M., Gerson, R., & Shellenberger, S. (1999). Genograms: Assessment and Intervention. (Second ed.) New York: Norton.
Olson, D., Portner, J., & Lavin, Y. (1985). Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scale (FACES-III). St. Paul, MN: University of Minnesota.
Patenaude, A. F. (2005). Genetic Testing for Cancer: Psychological Approaches for Helping Patients and Families. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Patenaude, A. F., Guttmacher, A. E., & Collins, F. S. (2002). Genetic testing and psychology - New roles, new responsibilities. Am Psychol, 57, 271–282.
Peters, J. A., Kenen, R., Giusti, R., Loud, J., Weissman, N., & Greene, M. H. (2004). Exploratory study of the feasibility and utility of the colored eco-genetic relationship map (CEGRM) in women at high genetic risk of developing breast cancer. Am J Med Genet Part A, 130A, 258–264.
Peterson, S. K., Watts, B. G., Koehly, L. M., Vernon, S. W., Baile, W. F., Kohlmann, W. K., et al. (2003). How families communicate about HNPCC genetic testing: Findings from a qualitative study. Am J Med Genet Part C-Seminars Med Genet, 119C, 78–86.
Pistrang, N., Barker, C., & Rutter, C. (1997). Social support as conversation: Analysing breast cancer patients’ interactions with their partners. Soc Sci Med, 45, 773–782.
Rebbeck, T. R., Levin, A. M., Eisen, A., Snyder, C., Watson, P., Cannon-Albright, L., et al. (1999). Breast cancer risk after bilateral prophylactic oophorectomy in BRCA1 mutation carriers. J Natl Cancer Inst, 91, 1475–1479.
Rebbeck, T. R., Lynch, H. T., Neuhausen, S. L., Narod, S. A., Van't Veer, L., Garber, J. E., et al. (2002). Prophylactic oophorectomy in carriers of BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. N Engl J Med, 346, 1616–1622.
Rebbeck, T. R., Friebel, T., Lynch, H. T., Neuhausen, S. L., ‘t Veer, L., Garber, J. E., et al. (2004). Bilateral Prophylactic Mastectomy Reduces Breast Cancer Risk in BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutation Carriers: The PROSE Study Group. J Clin Oncol, JCO.
Richards, M. P. M. (1996). Families, kinship and genetics. In T. Marteau, & M. P. M. Richards (Eds.), The troubled helix: Social and psychological implications of the new human genetics (pp. 249–273). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Rippentrop, A. E., Altmaier, E. M., Chen, J. J., Found, E. M., & Keffala, V. J. (2005). The relationship between religion/spirituality and physical health, mental health, and pain in a chronic pain population. Pain, 116, 311–321.
Rober, P. (2005). Family therapy as a dialogue of living persons: A perspective inspired by Bakhtin, Voloshinov, and Shotter. J Marit Fam Ther, 31, 385–397.
Rolland, J. S. (1989). Chronic illness and the family life cycle. In B. Carter, & M. McGoldrick (Eds.), The Changing Family Life Cycle: A Framework for Family Therapy (pp. 433–456). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Rolland, J. S. (1994). Families, Illness, and Disability: An Integrative Treatment Model. New York: Basic Books.
Sarason, I. G., Levine, H. M., Basham, R. B., & Sarason, B. R. (1983). Assessing Social Support - the Social Support Questionnaire. J Pers Soc Psychol, 44, 127–139.
Schneider, K. (2001). Counseling about Cancer: Strategies for Genetic Counseling, Second Edition (second ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Schneider, K. (2003). A welcome step: Let's climb to the next tier. Clin Psychol Sci Pract, 10, 316–317.
Stark, R. (2004).Sociology (9th ed. ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co.
Stefanek, M., McDonald, P. G., & Hess, S. A. (2005). Religion, spirituality and cancer: Current status and methodological challenges. Psycho-Oncol, 14, 450–463.
Struewing, J. S., Hartge, P., Washolder, S., Baker, S. M., Berlin, M., McAdams, M., et al. (1997). The risk of cancer associated with specific mutations of BRCA1 and BRCA2 among Ashkenazi Jews. New England J Med, 336, 1401–1408.
Thompson, D., & Easton, D. F. (2002). Cancer incidence in BRCA1 mutation carriers. J Natl Cancer Inst, 94, 1358–1365.
Watson, M., Foster, C., Eeles, R., Eccles, D., Ashley, S., Davidson, R., et al. (2004). Psychosocial impact of breast/ovarian (BRCA 1/2) cancer-predictive genetic testing in a UK multi-centre clinical cohort. Brit J Cancer, 91, 1787–1794.
Weil, J. (2000). Psychosocial Genetic Counseling. New York: Oxford University Press.
Weissman, M. M., Olfson, M., Gameroff, M. J., Feder, A., & Fuentes, M. (2001). A comparison of three scales for assessing social functioning in primary care. Am J Psychiat, 158, 460–466.
Wellisch, D. K., Gritz, E. R., Schain, W., Wang, H. J., & Siau, J. (1992). Psychological functioning of daughters of breast cancer patients, Part II: Characterizing the distressed daughter of the breast cancer patient. Psychosomatics, 32, 324–336.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research was supported by the Intramural Research Program of the National Institutes of Health, by the National Cancer Institute, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics. The authors wish to thank Ruth Foelber, Ann Carr and the other staff at Westat, as well as Jennifer Loud, Nancy Weissman and other colleagues in the Clinical Genetics Branch for their tangible and collegial support for this project. Thanks also to Heather Bremer who administered some CEGRMs during an NCI internship while a genetic counseling graduate student at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD. Of course, none of this could have happened without the generous cooperation and open-hearted participation of the women in the NCI Breast Imaging Study, who have taught us so much about how to cope gracefully with genetic risk.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Peters, J.A., Hoskins, L., Prindiville, S. et al. Evolution of the Colored Eco-Genetic Relationship Map (CEGRM) for Assessing Social Functioning in Women in Hereditary Breast-Ovarian (HBOC) Families. J Genet Counsel 15, 477–489 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-006-9042-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-006-9042-7