The purpose of this pilot study was to describe communication practices during hereditary breast cancer genetic counseling (GC) with low-income immigrant Latina patients in a public hospital setting. We utilized qualitative ethnographic methods, including direct observation of GC appointments with Latina patients at a public hospital offering free GC and BRCA testing and in-depth qualitative interviews with patients after they had received their BRCA genetic test results. Twenty-five patients participated; 20 were observed during genetic counseling appointments, and ten participated in interviews after BRCA testing with six participating in both observations and an interview. Analyses of qualitative data from observation field notes and interviews identified both strengths and limitations of current communication practices within the following themes: (1) family health history communication, (2) education regarding genes and genetics and patient information needs, (3) the purpose of the genetic test, (4) genetic test results and cancer risk, (5) building rapport and providing support, and (6) medical interpretation for monolingual Spanish speakers. As access to cancer GC expands in the public safety net settings and for the diverse populations they serve, it is critical to ensure effective communication in order for patients, whether or not they have a BRCA mutation, to understand the nature of their cancer risk and recommended methods of screening and prevention. Intervention strategies that address both structural constraints and patient-provider communication are needed to improve GC communication with immigrant Latinas, especially monolingual Spanish speakers.

Adaptive pragmatic clinical trials offer an innovative approach that integrates clinical care and research. Yet, blurring the boundaries between research and clinical care raises questions about how clinicians and investigators balance their caregiving and research roles and what types of knowledge and risk assessment are most valued. This paper presents findings from an ethnographic ELSI (Ethical, Legal, Social Implications) study of an innovative clinical trial of risk-based breast cancer screening that utilizes genomics to stratify risk and recommend a breast cancer screening commensurate with the assessed risk. We argue that the trial demonstrates a fundamental tension between the promissory ideals of personalized medicine, and the reality of implementing risk stratified care on a population scale. We examine the development of a Screening Assignment Review Board in response to this tension which allows clinician-investigators to negotiate, but never fully resolve, the inherent contradiction of 'precision population screening'.

In cancer genetic counseling (CGC), communication across language and culture challenges the model of practice based on shared decision-making. To date, little research has examined the decision-making process of low-income, limited English proficiency (LEP) patients in CGC. This study identified communication patterns in CGC sessions with this population and assessed how these patterns facilitate or inhibit the decision-making process during the sessions. We analyzed 24 audio recordings of CGC sessions conducted in Spanish via telephone interpreters at two public hospitals. Patients were referred for risk of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer; all were offered genetic testing. Audio files were coded by two bilingual English-Spanish researchers and analyzed using conventional content analysis through an iterative process. The 24 sessions included 13 patients, 6 counselors, and 18 interpreters. Qualitative data analyses identified three key domains - Challenges Posed by Hypothetical Explanations, Misinterpretation by the Medical Interpreter, and Communication Facilitators - that reflect communication patterns and their impact on the counselor's ability to facilitate shared decision-making. Overall, we found an absence of patient participation in the decision-making process. Our data suggest that when counseling LEP Latina patients via medical interpreter, prioritizing information with direct utility for the patient and organizing information into short- and long-term goals may reduce information overload and improve comprehension for patient and interpreter. Further research is needed to test the proposed counseling strategies with this population and to assess how applicable our findings are to other populations.

Population-based genomic screening is at the forefront of a new approach to disease prevention. Yet the lack of diversity in genome wide association studies and ongoing debates about the appropriate use of racial and ethnic categories in genomics raise key questions about the translation of genomic knowledge into clinical practice. This article reports on an ethnographic study of a large pragmatic clinical trial of breast cancer screening called WISDOM (Women Informed to Screen Depending On Measures of Risk). Our ethnography illuminates the challenges of using race or ethnicity as a risk factor in the implementation of precision breast cancer risk assessment. Our analysis provides critical insights into how categories of race, ethnicity and ancestry are being deployed in the production of genomic knowledge and medical practice, and key challenges in the development and implementation of novel Polygenic Risk Scores in the research and clinical applications of this emerging science. Specifically, we show how the conflation of social and biological categories of difference can influence risk prediction for individuals who exist at the boundaries of these categories, affecting the perceptions and practices of scientists, clinicians, and research participants themselves. Our research highlights the potential harms of practicing genomic medicine using under-theorized and ambiguous categories of race, ethnicity, and ancestry, particularly in an adaptive, pragmatic trial where research findings are applied in the clinic as they emerge. We contribute to the expanding literature on categories of difference in post-genomic science by closely examining the implementation of a large breast cancer screening study that aims to personalize breast cancer risk using both common and rare genomic markers.

Whole exome sequencing (WES) uses next generation sequencing technology to provide information on nearly all functional, protein-coding regions in an individual's genome. Due to the vast amount of information and incidental findings that can be generated from this technology, patient preferences must be investigated to help clinicians consent and return results to patients. Patients (n = 19) who were previously clinically diagnosed with Lynch syndrome, but received uninformative negative Lynch syndrome genetic results through traditional molecular testing methods participated in semi-structured interviews after WES testing but before return of results to explore their views of WES and preferences for return of results. Analyses of interview results found that nearly all participants believed that the benefits of receiving all possible results generated from WES outweighed the undesirable effects. The majority of participants conveyed that relative to coping with a cancer diagnosis, information generated from WES would be manageable. Importantly, participants' experience with Lynch syndrome influenced their notions of genetic determinism, tolerance for uncertain results, and family communication plans. Participants would prefer to receive WES results in person from a genetic counselor or medical geneticist so that an expert could help explain the meaning and implications of the potentially large quantity and range of complicated results. These results underscore the need to study various populations with regard to the clinical use of WES in order to effectively and empathetically communicate the possible implications of this new technology and return results.

As genetics and genomics become part of mainstream medicine, these advances have the potential to either reduce or exacerbate health disparities. Relatively, little research has explored the quality of genetic counseling communication experienced by limited English proficiency patients, especially Chinese Americans. We observed and audio recorded genetic counseling appointments (n = 40) of low-income, limited English-proficient Chinese patients (n = 25) and conducted post-visit interviews (n = 17) using stimulated recall to examine patient understanding of the communication. Standard techniques based in grounded theory, including iterative data review and multiple coders, were used to analyze observation fieldnotes and interview transcripts and to identify these themes: (1) strong beliefs in environmental causes of cancer and skepticism about genetic causes, (2) willingness to undergo genetic testing despite skepticism of hereditary cause of cancer, (3) misunderstanding of key information needed to make informed decisions about testing and screening/prevention options, (4) variable quality of medical interpretation, and (5) selective family communication about cancer and genetic counseling and testing. Together, these themes describe substantial gaps in communication and identify the need for genetic counseling techniques and skills that enable counselors to communicate more effectively across language, literacy, and culture. Understanding the mechanisms of inheritance and the implications of genetic test results can be challenging for anyone, and it is exceptionally daunting for those who have limited English proficiency and/or low literacy. For Chinese immigrant patients to reap the full benefits of genetic counseling and testing, effective communication is essential. Research on interventions to improve communication is needed to ensure that disparities do not widen as genomic medicine reaches a more diverse population.

The original version of this article unfortunately contained an error. The correction is shown below. In Table 4, the title of the first column reads, “Information Provided to Counselors.” This should read, “Information Provided by Counselors.”.

As genetics and genomics become part of mainstream Medicine, these advances have the potential to reduce or exacerbate health disparities. Gaps in effective communication (where all parties share the same meaning) are widely recognized as a major contributor to health disparities. The purpose of this study was to examine GC-patient communication in real time, to assess its effectiveness from the patient perspective, and then to pilot intervention strategies to improve the communication. We observed 64 English-, 35 Spanish- and 25 Chinese-speaking (n = 124) public hospital patients and 10 GCs in 170 GC appointments, and interviewed 49 patients who were offered testing using the audio recordings to stimulate recall and probe specific aspects of the communication. Data analyses were conducted using grounded theory methods and revealed a fundamental mismatch between the information provided by GCs and the information desired and meaningful to patients. Several components of the communication that contributed to this mismatch and often resulted in ineffective communication included: (1) too much information; (2) complex terminology and conceptually difficult presentation of information; (3) information perceived as not relevant by the patient; (4) unintentional inhibition of patient engagement and question-asking; (5) vague discussions of screening and prevention recommendations. Our findings indicate a need to transform the standard model of genetic counseling communication using evidence-based principles and strategies from other fields of Medicine. The high rates of limited health literacy in the US, increasing access of diverse populations to genetic services, and growing complexity of genetic information have created a perfect storm. If not directly addressed, this convergence is likely to exacerbate health disparities in the genomic age.

Effective communication, where all parties share a common understanding, is necessary to realize the promise of Genomic Medicine. It is especially salient given the imperative to increase the participation of diverse populations in genomics research and to expand the reach of clinical genomics. We have previously shown that cancer genetic counseling is suboptimal for patients with limited health literacy. To address this finding, we implemented a pilot study to improve verbal communication between genetic counselors and their patients of limited health literacy that consisted of: i) curriculum development and delivery of a Genetic Counselors (GC) communication workshop; ii) two-month post-workshop interviews with GC participants (n = 9); iii) observations/audio recordings of counseling sessions involving 24 patients and two GC workshop participants; iv) post-counseling interviews with patients (n = 9). The 4.5-h workshop presented evidenced-based principles and strategies for effective communication with limited health literacy patients (e.g. use of plain language and teach-back), and offered specific techniques and exercises to practice adoption of such practices in the genetic counseling context. GCs expressed appreciation for the opportunity to refine their skills; however, they reported that some strategies were challenging given their professional training and communication habits. For example, GCs were concerned that use of plain language could undermine efforts to obtain informed consent and provide scientifically accurate information. Observations and patient interviews after the workshop revealed that GCs were able to employ the communication strategies with positive effects, with patients indicating sufficient understanding of the genetic test and its implications as well as satisfaction with the counselors' communication. While derived from research on communication with those of limited health literacy, the communication approaches taught in the GC workshop could benefit most patients, given the high rates of low health literacy in many countries, and the many factors beyond health literacy that can contribute to reduced comprehension in health care environments.