Cargando…
Impact of a genetic counseling requirement prior to genetic testing
BACKGROUND: Genetic counseling by a Genetic Counselor (GC) is a requirement prior to genetic testing for cancer susceptibility genes (GC-mandate policy) for some insurers. This study evaluated the impact of this policy from the patient perspective. METHODS: Surveys were sent to individuals for whom...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5842549/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29514700 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-018-2957-5 |
_version_ | 1783304919023878144 |
---|---|
author | Stenehjem, David D. Au, Trang Sainski, Amy M. Bauer, Hillevi Brown, Krystal Lancaster, Johnathan Stevens, Vanessa Brixner, Diana I. |
author_facet | Stenehjem, David D. Au, Trang Sainski, Amy M. Bauer, Hillevi Brown, Krystal Lancaster, Johnathan Stevens, Vanessa Brixner, Diana I. |
author_sort | Stenehjem, David D. |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Genetic counseling by a Genetic Counselor (GC) is a requirement prior to genetic testing for cancer susceptibility genes (GC-mandate policy) for some insurers. This study evaluated the impact of this policy from the patient perspective. METHODS: Surveys were sent to individuals for whom their insurer ordered genetic testing for the cancer susceptibility genes BCRA1 and BRCA2 over a 1 year time period that spanned the introduction of a GC-mandate policy. Responses were assessed by time period (before/after policy introduction) and genetic test completion. RESULTS: The surveys were completed by 1247/4950 (25.7%) eligible individuals. After policy introduction, there was no change in the proportion of respondents who completed genetic testing (p = 0.13) or had a mutation (p = 0.55). Overall decisional conflict (uncertainty or feeling uninformed) around genetic testing did not change after policy introduction (p = 0.16), but was significantly higher among respondents who did not complete genetic testing (p < 0.01). Although a larger proportion of respondents saw a GC after policy introduction (p < 0.01), fewer did so to better understand their test results (p < 0.01). The proportion of respondents who did not see a GC due to insurance issues/requirements and time restraints was higher among those tested after policy introduction or who did not complete genetic testing (p < 0.01). In multivariate analysis, respondents with a household income of $25,000 or greater were 3-times more likely to complete testing. CONCLUSIONS: A GC-mandate policy did not improve decisional conflict or increase the number of deleterious mutations identified and low-income respondents were less likely to complete testing. On the contrary, insurance requirements and time constraints may be preventing individuals at risk from receiving appropriate testing. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-018-2957-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5842549 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-58425492018-03-14 Impact of a genetic counseling requirement prior to genetic testing Stenehjem, David D. Au, Trang Sainski, Amy M. Bauer, Hillevi Brown, Krystal Lancaster, Johnathan Stevens, Vanessa Brixner, Diana I. BMC Health Serv Res Research Article BACKGROUND: Genetic counseling by a Genetic Counselor (GC) is a requirement prior to genetic testing for cancer susceptibility genes (GC-mandate policy) for some insurers. This study evaluated the impact of this policy from the patient perspective. METHODS: Surveys were sent to individuals for whom their insurer ordered genetic testing for the cancer susceptibility genes BCRA1 and BRCA2 over a 1 year time period that spanned the introduction of a GC-mandate policy. Responses were assessed by time period (before/after policy introduction) and genetic test completion. RESULTS: The surveys were completed by 1247/4950 (25.7%) eligible individuals. After policy introduction, there was no change in the proportion of respondents who completed genetic testing (p = 0.13) or had a mutation (p = 0.55). Overall decisional conflict (uncertainty or feeling uninformed) around genetic testing did not change after policy introduction (p = 0.16), but was significantly higher among respondents who did not complete genetic testing (p < 0.01). Although a larger proportion of respondents saw a GC after policy introduction (p < 0.01), fewer did so to better understand their test results (p < 0.01). The proportion of respondents who did not see a GC due to insurance issues/requirements and time restraints was higher among those tested after policy introduction or who did not complete genetic testing (p < 0.01). In multivariate analysis, respondents with a household income of $25,000 or greater were 3-times more likely to complete testing. CONCLUSIONS: A GC-mandate policy did not improve decisional conflict or increase the number of deleterious mutations identified and low-income respondents were less likely to complete testing. On the contrary, insurance requirements and time constraints may be preventing individuals at risk from receiving appropriate testing. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-018-2957-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2018-03-07 /pmc/articles/PMC5842549/ /pubmed/29514700 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-018-2957-5 Text en © The Author(s). 2018 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Stenehjem, David D. Au, Trang Sainski, Amy M. Bauer, Hillevi Brown, Krystal Lancaster, Johnathan Stevens, Vanessa Brixner, Diana I. Impact of a genetic counseling requirement prior to genetic testing |
title | Impact of a genetic counseling requirement prior to genetic testing |
title_full | Impact of a genetic counseling requirement prior to genetic testing |
title_fullStr | Impact of a genetic counseling requirement prior to genetic testing |
title_full_unstemmed | Impact of a genetic counseling requirement prior to genetic testing |
title_short | Impact of a genetic counseling requirement prior to genetic testing |
title_sort | impact of a genetic counseling requirement prior to genetic testing |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5842549/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29514700 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-018-2957-5 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT stenehjemdavidd impactofageneticcounselingrequirementpriortogenetictesting AT autrang impactofageneticcounselingrequirementpriortogenetictesting AT sainskiamym impactofageneticcounselingrequirementpriortogenetictesting AT bauerhillevi impactofageneticcounselingrequirementpriortogenetictesting AT brownkrystal impactofageneticcounselingrequirementpriortogenetictesting AT lancasterjohnathan impactofageneticcounselingrequirementpriortogenetictesting AT stevensvanessa impactofageneticcounselingrequirementpriortogenetictesting AT brixnerdianai impactofageneticcounselingrequirementpriortogenetictesting |