Bioethics Paper

4/22/2021 A Rapid Systematic Review of Outcomes Studies in Genetic Counseling - Madlensky - 2017 - Journal of Genetic Counseling - Wiley Online Library

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1007/s10897-017-0067-x 1/20

Journal of Genetic Counseling / Volume 26, Issue 3 / p. 361-378

Review Paper Free Access

A Rapid Systematic Review of Outcomes Studies in Genetic Counseling

Lisa Madlensky , Angela M. Trepanier , Deborah Cragun , Barbara Lerner , Kristen M. Shannon , Heather Zierhut

First published: 06 February 2017 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-017-0067-x Citations: 35

Abstract

As healthcare reimbursement is increasingly tied to value‐of‐service, it is critical for the genetic counselor (GC) profession to demonstrate the value added by GCs through outcomes research. We conducted a rapid systematic literature review to identify outcomes of genetic counseling. Web of Science (including PubMed) and CINAHL databases were systematically searched to identify articles meeting the following criteria: 1) measures were assessed before and after genetic counseling (pre‐post design) or comparisons were made between a GC group vs. a non‐GC group (comparative cohort design); 2) genetic counseling outcomes could be assessed independently of genetic testing outcomes, and 3) genetic counseling was conducted by masters‐level genetic counselors, or non‐physician providers. Twenty‐three papers met the inclusion criteria. The majority of studies were in the cancer genetic setting and the most commonly measured outcomes included knowledge, anxiety or distress, satisfaction, perceived risk, genetic testing (intentions or receipt), health behaviors, and decisional con�ict. Results suggest that genetic counseling can lead to increased knowledge, perceived personal control, positive health behaviors, and improved risk perception accuracy as well as decreases in anxiety, cancer‐related worry, and decisional con�ict. However, further studies are needed to evaluate a wider array of outcomes in more diverse genetic counseling settings.

Introduction Genetic counselors are health care providers who have completed specialized graduate training to function as professionals in this discipline. While the term “genetic counseling” can be used

4/22/2021 A Rapid Systematic Review of Outcomes Studies in Genetic Counseling - Madlensky - 2017 - Journal of Genetic Counseling - Wiley Online Library

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1007/s10897-017-0067-x 2/20

somewhat generically to describe the activity of genetic counseling, regardless of the type of health care provider involved, we use the term genetic counseling in this paper to mean an intervention delivered by individuals trained as genetic counselors speci�cally.

The practice of genetic counseling has been de�ned as, “…the process of helping people understand and adapt to the medical, psychological and familial implications of genetic contributions to disease”. The de�nition states that the process includes three components‐ risk assessment, education, and counseling (NSGCDTF 2006). Outcomes that are stated or can be implied from this de�nition include: improved patient knowledge through e�ective education and attention to the impact of genetic information; accurate identi�cation and communication of risk on the part of the genetic counselor; and informed patient decision‐ making. The adaptation component of the de�nition alludes to multiple potential outcomes including improving patient adherence to available medical management recommendations, enhancing quality of life, reducing morbidity and mortality, and promoting patient sharing of information with at‐risk relatives. In addition, genetic testing is increasingly a component of risk assessment. Appropriate genetic testing, which encompasses identifying the right genetic test(s) and o�ering it to appropriate patients, might also be a potential genetic counseling outcome.

Rising health care costs in the absence of concomitant improvements in the public's health are driving health care professionals, including genetic counselors, to identify and implement evidence‐based strategies that improve patient outcomes. Prior work to generate a comprehensive list of genetic counseling outcomes includes work by The Western States Genetics Services Collaborative. This group developed an outcomes menu for public health and clinical genetics services based on a review of the literature, two existing documents describing genetics outcomes, and an iterative review process (Silvey et al. 2009). The group identi�ed 12 major outcomes with 42 sub‐outcomes falling into �ve impact areas: knowledge and information; �nancing; screening and identi�cation; diagnosis, treatment and management; and population health. Outcomes speci�c to genetic counseling included making informed health and life decisions based on a genetic diagnosis, participating in treatment “at optimal levels” after genetic counseling, and feeling supported in managing their emotional reactions to the genetic information (Silvey et al. 2009).

Establishing a set of meaningful genetic counseling outcomes, although not without its challenges, is critical to supporting evidence‐based practice in genetic counseling. The goals of this rapid systematic literature review are 1) to catalogue and summarize the outcomes that have been previously measured in the setting of genetic counseling provided by genetic counselors; 2) to identify potential gaps in the literature; 3) to discuss some of the challenges in outcomes research; and 4) make recommendations about future outcomes research in genetic counseling.

4/22/2021 A Rapid Systematic Review of Outcomes Studies in Genetic Counseling - Madlensky - 2017 - Journal of Genetic Counseling - Wiley Online Library

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1007/s10897-017-0067-x 3/20

Methods We conducted a literature review using a “systematic rapid‐review” approach (Ganann et al. 2010). The Web of Science (including Pub Med) and CINAHL databases were searched using the terms “genetic* counsel*” and “genetic consul*” to capture all papers with a title, abstract, or topic that included the phrase “genetic counselor”, “genetic counseling”, “genetic consult” and variant spellings. Searches were performed on July 18, 2013, no date limits were applied. Searches were re�ned to exclude case reports and non‐peer reviewed journal articles (such as commentaries), non‐English papers, and animal studies. Our primary goal was to simply catalogue the outcomes that had been used in previous research, not to apply any quality metrics or meta‐ analyses as might be done in a more traditional systematic review of an intervention.

The inclusion criteria were:

1. Genetic counseling was provided by non‐physician genetics specialists. (Masters‐level genetic counselor, advanced practice genetics nurse, or other graduate‐level genetics specialist trained in accordance with the standards and accreditations appropriate to that country). In the case of multiple types of providers performing genetic counseling within a study, the study was included if the majority of providers were non‐physician genetic counselors. We excluded studies that measured the outcomes of genetic testing. Receiving a genetic test result as part of a genetic counseling session is an event that may profoundly alter medical management or reproductive decision‐making in and of itself. As such, genetic testing is likely to have outcomes that are distinct from genetic counseling outcomes.

2. Measures occurred before and after genetic counseling (pre‐post design) OR measures were compared between a genetic counseling arm vs some other intervention or a control arm that did not include genetic counseling (comparative cohort design).

One author reviewed the initial list of references and papers that clearly did not meet eligibility criteria were excluded. The remaining abstracts were each reviewed by two authors independently to determine inclusion. When the two authors did not agree on eligibility, discussion between the two authors resulted in resolution in all cases. In cases where eligibility could not be determined from the publication (e.g., in cases where the paper did not indicate who provided the genetic counseling), the corresponding author of the respective paper was contacted for clari�cation. Once the list of eligible studies was �nalized, key data elements were extracted from the published papers and summarized. Variables extracted included sample size, clinical setting, geographic location, study design, patient/family characteristics, outcome measures reported, and results.

4/22/2021 A Rapid Systematic Review of Outcomes Studies in Genetic Counseling - Madlensky - 2017 - Journal of Genetic Counseling - Wiley Online Library

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1007/s10897-017-0067-x 4/20

Results The Web of Science/PubMed search identi�ed a total of 13,329 papers; CINAHL identi�ed 1038. An initial review of all abstracts resulted in retention of 1063 references for further review. A total of 23 papers met our inclusion criteria. The clinical setting, geographic location, study design, and outcomes measured are reported in Table 1.

Table 1. Characteristics of studies that reported outcomes of genetic counseling (n = 23)

Total >100% since some studies measured >1 outcome

Eleven studies compared patients receiving genetic counseling to a control or comparison group (Table 2), and twelve studies used a pre‐ post‐ design (Table 3). There were six

Setting

Cancer 13 57

General 6 26

Prenatal 2 9

Pediatric 1 4

Psychiatric 1 4

Country

United States 16 70

Canada 2 9

Australia 2 9

Israel 1 4

Netherlands 1 4

Spain 1 4

Study design and comparison

Observational, comparative, GC vs. no GC (Table 2) 5

a

N %

4/22/2021 A Rapid Systematic Review of Outcomes Studies in Genetic Counseling - Madlensky - 2017 - Journal of Genetic Counseling - Wiley Online Library

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1007/s10897-017-0067-x 5/20

randomized trials that directly examined genetic counseling versus some other intervention. Most studies were conducted in the United States with Masters‐level genetic counselors providing the genetic counseling.

Table 2. Comparative studies‐ randomized or observational

Intention, attitude, receipt, desire, interest, or completion of Genetic Testing MS‐ GC (Masters‐level genetic counselor)

CF (cystic �brosis) Follow‐up to Ciske et al. 2001

Table 3. Observational, single‐arm studies with pre‐post design

Bowen et al.

2002

(Randomized)

Cancer

(USA)

357 MS‐ GC Female

relatives of

breast

cancer

patients

GC vs group

session with

health

counselor vs

control (no

GC or group)

Burke et al.

2000

(Randomized)

Cancer

(USA)

243 MS‐ GC Female

relatives of

breast

cancer

patients

GC vs control

group (no

GC)

Ciske et al.

2001

General

genetics

(USA)

138 MS‐ GC Parents of

children

with CF

GC vs no GC

(per self‐

report)

X

Cavanagh et

al 2010

General

genetics

37 MS‐ GC Parents of

children

GC vs no GC

(per self‐

X

b

c

d

a b

c d

Study Setting

(Location)

Sample

size

Genetic

Counselor

Study

population

Comparison

groups

Outcomes

Knowledge Anxiety,

Depression,

or Distress

Study Setting

(Location)

Sample

size

Genetic

Counselor

Study

population

Timing of

Measures

Outcomes

4/22/2021 A Rapid Systematic Review of Outcomes Studies in Genetic Counseling - Madlensky - 2017 - Journal of Genetic Counseling - Wiley Online Library

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1007/s10897-017-0067-x 6/20

Satisfaction with genetic counseling and/or genetic testing or perceived usefulness of genetic counseling Health

behavior constructs (e.g. cancer screening in Meiser et al. 2001; BMI in Taylor and Wu 2009) Communication with family

members and family relationships Perceived personal control Quality of Life Masters‐level trained genetic counselors

(MS‐GC)

Table 4 summarizes the measures used and the results of the included studies, organized by outcome domains. The most frequently measured outcomes were knowledge, satisfaction, anxiety and distress (including disease‐speci�c distress and general distress), perceived risk, genetic testing (intent or receipt), decisional con�ict, and health behaviors (including adherence). Measures used were a mix of previously validated measures and study‐speci�c measures.

Table 4. Results of studies by outcome type

Austin and

Honer 2008

Psychiatric

(Canada)

13 MS‐GC Parents of

children with

psychiatric

disorder

Baseline,

Immediately

post‐GC, 1‐

month post‐

GC

X

Baldwin et

al. 2012

General

genetics

(USA)

244 MS‐GC Deaf/hard of

hearing adults

Baseline,

immediately

post‐GC

X

Berkenstadt

et al. 1999

Prenatal

(Israel)

256 MS‐GC, few

with MD

geneticist

Patients

referred for

age‐related

prenatal

diagnosis with

Baseline,

immediately

post‐GC

f

a b

c

d e f

Study Setting

(Location)

Sample

size

Genetic

Counselor

Study

population

Timing of

Measures

OutcomesKnow‐ ledge

Know‐ ledge

Anxiety,

Distress,

Concern,

or

Depression

Anxiety,

Distress,

Concern,

or

Depression

Study Study population Measures Main results

4/22/2021 A Rapid Systematic Review of Outcomes Studies in Genetic Counseling - Madlensky - 2017 - Journal of Genetic Counseling - Wiley Online Library

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1007/s10897-017-0067-x 7/20

BRCA breast cancer, HBOC hereditary breast and ovarian cancer, CF cystic �brosis, NHGRI National Human Genome

Research Institute, AMA advanced maternal age

Knowledge The outcome studied most extensively in this review is knowledge. This is not unexpected given that education is one of the primary components of the genetic counseling process, and knowledge can be measured in a variety of settings. The majority of studies that used a pre‐ post design showed an increase in knowledge across several di�erent practice settings. However, the majority of studies were in the hereditary breast cancer setting. All studies measured knowledge within 6 months of genetic counseling. The few studies that compared genetic counseling to a di�erent educational intervention (e.g., pamphlet, computer‐based modules) found that genetic counseling and the other interventions all increased knowledge.

Anxiety, Depression, Distress

Knowledge

Baldwin

et al. 2012

Deaf or hard of

hearing individuals

10 true/false knowledge

questions on genetics given at

baseline and pre‐ and post

genetic counseling

Statistically signi�cant increase in

knowledge following pre‐test genetic

counseling (paired t(239) = 3.45, p = .0007).

Cabrera

et al. 2010

Patients without a

cancer diagnosis

presenting for BRCA

genetic

counseling/with a

family history of

breast cancer

13 question knowledge

questionnaire developed by the

study investigators to evaluate

prevention, diagnosis, and

treatment of breast cancer, risk

of breast cancer and HBOC risk.

Score 0–31 with higher = more

knowledge. Administered at

baseline, immediately post

genetic counseling (P1) and 6

months later (P2)

A signi�cant increase in knowledge was

detected from baseline (mean knowledge

score of 16.37, S.D. 4.1) to Post 1 (mean

score of 19.6, S.D. 4.3, p < 0.001) and from

baseline to Post 2 (mean score of 19.6, S.D.

4.2, p = 0.005. Changes in knowledge were

less signi�cant for participants who were

older, lower levels of education, and having

4 or more children.

Cavanagh et

al. 2010

Parents of children

with CF

18‐item knowledge

questionnaire (multiple choice

and yes/no/unsure) regarding

the genetics of CF and their

Parents who received genetic counseling

had signi�cantly higher knowledge scores

than those who did not receive genetic

counseling (r = 0 53 95% CI = 0 73 to

Study Study population Measures Main results

4/22/2021 A Rapid Systematic Review of Outcomes Studies in Genetic Counseling - Madlensky - 2017 - Journal of Genetic Counseling - Wiley Online Library

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1007/s10897-017-0067-x 8/20

Five studies measured anxiety. Four of these studies used the State Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) and all studies showed either decreases or no change in anxiety levels. No studies found an increase in anxiety. Four of the �ve studies were conducted in the hereditary breast cancer setting.

Several studies evaluated depression, concern, negative a�ect, and/or distress. Notably, several studies in the cancer setting speci�cally used the Impact of Events Scale, where genetic counseling was the “event”. The majority of studies demonstrated no change in distress, with a few showing reduced distress.

Perceived Risk All but one study of perceived risk were in the breast cancer setting where a variety of study‐ speci�c measures were used. Most studies showed a decrease in perceived risk. This result was interpreted as a bene�cial outcome as many study participants were overestimating their cancer risk at baseline.

Satisfaction/Perceived Usefulness Five studies examined satisfaction with the genetic counseling process, or satisfaction with decision‐making. A study by Hunter et al. (2005) is notable as it was a randomized trial of various genetic counseling approaches in the prenatal setting. The study found that women having individual genetic counseling were more satis�ed than women receiving group genetic counseling or who were given a decision aid.

Genetic Testing Intent or Receipt All except one of the �ve studies looking at intention to undergo genetic testing or receipt of genetic testing were in the breast cancer genetics setting; in some cases the goal was to decrease inappropriate testing intentions in low‐risk women.

Health Behaviors Including Adherence Five studies measured aspects of health behavior. One study, conducted in the diabetes setting, measured weight loss and attendance at a 12‐week lifestyle balance course. Another study, conducted in the cancer setting, measured breast cancer screening practices. A third study investigated lifestyle and health changes (weight, blood pressure, sodium intake and physical activity) in a hypertensive population. The fourth investigated adherence to medical management recommendations (various) in a pediatric genetics patient population. The �fth investigated adherence to medical recommendations made in a pediatric genetics clinic.

Decisional Con�ict

4/22/2021 A Rapid Systematic Review of Outcomes Studies in Genetic Counseling - Madlensky - 2017 - Journal of Genetic Counseling - Wiley Online Library

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1007/s10897-017-0067-x 9/20

Three studies measured decisional con�ict; all used the Decisional Con�ict scale and all showed decreases in decisional con�ict. Two studies were in the cancer setting and one was in the prenatal setting.

Other Outcomes The review identi�ed several outcomes that were measured in only one or two studies, including: self‐esteem, quality of life, family outcomes (communication and relationships), and perceived personal control.

Discussion Although our �ndings are based on the relatively small number of studies meeting our inclusion criteria, the studies to date show that a wide variety of outcomes can be considered in genetic counseling research. Results of these studies demonstrate that genetic counseling can lead to increases in knowledge, perceived personal control, positive health behaviors, and increased accuracy of perceived risk. Anxiety, cancer‐related worry, and decisional con�ict often decrease following genetic counseling, and patient satisfaction is typically high. The studies we identi�ed used a variety of di�erent measures which limits the ability to make speci�c cross study comparisons. Furthermore, the majority of studies we reviewed occurred within the oncology/cancer risk setting which limits applicability to the other practice settings such as reproductive or pediatric genetics. The focus on outcomes in the cancer setting may be due to the availability of evidence‐based guidelines for cancer genetic risk assessment and widespread interest and availability of genetic counseling and testing for familial breast and ovarian cancer risk.

An important strength of the current review stems from the broad search terms and methods we used to increase our ability to capture relevant papers meeting our inclusion criteria. Despite our e�orts, additional studies meeting our criteria may not have been captured. Furthermore, this review must be interpreted in light of our strict criteria which deliberately focused on genetic counseling as provided by predominantly masters‐level genetic counselors. We identi�ed some additional studies that included advanced practice genetics nurses, and other types of genetic counselors as de�ned by their jurisdiction at the time of the study (for example, the Australian graduate diploma in genetic counseling). A recent review by McAllister and Dearing (2015) used a broader de�nition of “genetic services” which included genetic counseling by physicians, non‐physicians, and genetic testing. In contrast, our review excluded studies that combined the outcomes of genetic counseling and testing, as our focus was to look at what outcomes had been measured in the context of the genetic counseling process, rather than as the result of a genetic test. Finally, several cross‐sectional studies that showed patient satisfaction with genetic counseling or other post‐genetic counseling only measures were also

4/22/2021 A Rapid Systematic Review of Outcomes Studies in Genetic Counseling - Madlensky - 2017 - Journal of Genetic Counseling - Wiley Online Library

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1007/s10897-017-0067-x 10/20

excluded from this review as there was no baseline comparison measure. It should also be noted that we identi�ed two additional studies that were published following our cut‐o� date for the review that meet our inclusion criteria; Hippman et al. (2016) measured knowledge, risk perception, internalized stigma, and perceived control over illness in a pilot randomized trial of genetic counseling vs. an educational booklet; results indicated that genetic counseling improved risk perception and both interventions improved knowledge. Palmer et al. (2014) found that understanding of genetic test results improved after genetic counseling, and deaf identity remained stable in a sample of individuals undergoing genetic testing for mutations in genes related to deafness.

An important limitation of this study is that we did not attempt to evaluate the quality of the individual studies or identify biases that might be present in the study designs. Although randomized controlled trials are considered the gold standard, the quality can vary widely. We also chose to include pre‐post study designs, even though they are typically less scienti�cally rigorous, because we were primarily interested in capturing a broad spectrum of the types of outcomes that have been studied. Future work is needed to incorporate scales and checklists (such as CONSORT) that have been developed to rate the quality of studies.

Despite study limitations, critical gaps that this review highlights include the relatively small number of genetic counseling outcomes studied to date and lack of studies that focus on morbidity, mortality or other long‐term health outcomes. However, several outcomes may have direct or indirect in�uences on morbidity and mortality. For instance, genetic counseling may in�uence self‐e�cacy to follow treatment or surveillance recommendations as well as adherence to these recommendations in cases where such recommendations have been shown or are expected to result in decreased morbidity and mortality. Self‐e�cacy was not an outcome evaluated in any of the studies we identi�ed. However, after the date of our literature search, a randomized controlled trial of individuals with a �rst degree relative of colon cancer was published in which genetic counselors delivered a motivational interviewing risk communication intervention designed to increase perceptions of colorectal cancer risk and disease severity as well as self‐e�cacy and response‐e�cacy. That study found that rates of colonoscopy were substantially higher in the intervention group (35.4%) as compared to the comparison group who received mailed informational materials only (15.7%) (Kinney et al. 2014). Nevertheless, unlike colorectal cancer, not all genetic or familial conditions have clear treatment or prevention guidelines that reduce morbidity and mortality and therefore the e�ect of genetic counseling on other measures such as self‐reported quality of life may be areas to explore. Likewise, in prenatal genetic counseling, where the primary goal is autonomous, informed decision making, measures such as decisional con�ict and perceived personal control may be more appropriate.

4/22/2021 A Rapid Systematic Review of Outcomes Studies in Genetic Counseling - Madlensky - 2017 - Journal of Genetic Counseling - Wiley Online Library

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1007/s10897-017-0067-x 11/20

Additional focus on patient‐reported genetic counseling outcomes is critical as healthcare shifts to a more patient‐centered focus that emphasizes value and outcomes. All potential outcomes of interest, particularly those that have not been evaluated or that were included in only a single study in our review, will require additional veri�cation in a wider variety of settings. Identi�cation or development of standardized measures would also be useful for assisting in the ability to make comparisons across settings and across studies. Some outcomes scales speci�c to the genetic counseling setting have already been developed (McAllister et al. 2011), but our search did not identify any studies meeting our inclusion criteria that used this instrument within our search dates. A Satisfaction with Genetic Counseling scale has also been published (Shiloh et al. 1990) and was used in one study in our review. Several general measures that have been validated in multiple populations were used repeatedly (e.g. STAI, Impact of Events), but these were primarily in the cancer setting and were focused on cancer‐ related distress or distress related to cancer genetic counseling.

At the present time, there is a limited, but growing body of literature on genetic counseling outcomes to guide evidence‐based practice. However, there are a number of challenges to measuring these outcomes. One challenge is that there are a variety of health care professionals who provide genetic counseling services. Some, such as Master's trained genetic counselors, advanced practice genetics nurses, physician medical geneticists, and PhD medical geneticists have specialized training and certi�cation in genetics whereas others may have no or minimal training in genetics. These di�erences may translate into variations in how genetic counseling is provided by genetics professionals versus other health professionals who o�er genetic services, which limits the validity of comparing genetic counseling outcomes across professions and also highlights the need to identify which genetic counseling processes or strategies contribute most to patient outcomes.

Even amongst genetic specialists, clinical training, practice‐based competencies and scopes of practice vary (ACGC 2013; ACMG 2011). For instance, in the United States and Canada, genetic counselor training is focused on four competency domains‐ genetics expertise and analysis, interpersonal communication, psychosocial and counseling skills, education, and professional development and practice (ACGC 2013). Competencies for the physician medical geneticists overlap with many aspects of the genetic counselor competencies in areas such as genetics knowledge, family history taking, risk assessment and genetic testing (ACMG 2011). However, the geneticist competencies include the physical examination and treatment components that are not part of the genetic counselor scope of practice. In contrast, the genetic counselor competencies have greater emphasis on the patient education and counseling skills that are key components of genetic counselor's role (ACGC 2013). As such, the outcomes of a genetic counseling session performed solely by a medical geneticist may or may not be similar to those of sessions conducted by a genetic counselor.

4/22/2021 A Rapid Systematic Review of Outcomes Studies in Genetic Counseling - Madlensky - 2017 - Journal of Genetic Counseling - Wiley Online Library

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1007/s10897-017-0067-x 12/20

Another factor that makes it di�cult to measure genetic counseling outcomes is the diverse practice settings in which genetic counselors work. The 2014 National Society of Genetic Counselors’ Professional Status Survey revealed that 35% of clinical genetic counselors work in prenatal genetics, 12% in pediatric genetics, 29% in cancer genetics and 24% in other specialties, the most common of which are research, general genetics, cardiology, specialty disease, laboratory, infertility/IVF, metabolic disease, and neurogenetics (NSGC 2014). There are some desired outcomes that are common across practice settings such as patient satisfaction, accurate risk assessment, informed decision making and adaptation to genetic disease or risk. However even these potential “core” outcomes are conceptualized heterogeneously in di�erent genetics settings. Some outcomes, such as reducing morbidity and mortality through screening, risk reduction and preventative measures, may be most relevant to services such as cancer or cardiovascular genetics. Measuring outcomes is further complicated by the fact that genetic counseling is strongly rooted in promoting patient/family autonomy (NSGC 2006), especially in the prenatal and infertility/assisted reproductive technology settings. As such, outcome measures like disease prevention are not applicable, while measures of decisional con�ict or distress may be more suitable for such settings.

A further complicating factor in measuring genetic counseling outcomes is the tight link between genetic counseling and genetic testing. With genetic tests available for over several thousand genetic conditions, genetic testing is an increasingly common part of the genetic counseling process in many practice settings. If outcomes are measured after both genetic counseling and genetic testing have occurred, it is di�cult to assess whether the outcomes are the result of the counseling, testing, or a combination.

To overcome the many complicating factors mentioned above, we have developed six recommendations for moving forward with genetic counseling outcomes research described below.

1. Improve published descriptions of genetic counseling interventions

It is important to design studies that consider and better document what was done in the genetic counseling session and by whom. This may help overcome several of the challenges we describe related to a variety of provider types who o�er genetic services and variability in practices that may occur even within the �eld of genetic counseling.

2. Design studies that distinguish outcomes of genetic counseling vs genetic testing

Our review criteria led to the elimination of several studies because we were unable to discern the e�ects of these two separate, yet highly intertwined interventions. It is critical to capture how genetic counselors may be helping individuals adapt after they receive

4/22/2021 A Rapid Systematic Review of Outcomes Studies in Genetic Counseling - Madlensky - 2017 - Journal of Genetic Counseling - Wiley Online Library

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1007/s10897-017-0067-x 13/20

their test results. Indeed our inclusion criteria may partially explain the relatively small number of outcome types identi�ed in our review.

3. Conduct literature reviews or longitudinal studies aimed at identifying appropriate intermediate endpoints, or at developing an indirect chain of evidence linking proximal to distal outcomes

Research is needed to determine which, if any, of the previously studied outcomes are most strongly correlated with or in�uence more distal or long‐term outcomes such as morbidity, mortality, mental health, and social health. One of the primary goals of outcomes research will be to identify measures that can be used to evaluate the quality of genetic counseling delivered by various providers. Importantly, the U.S. National Quality Measures Clearinghouse does not consider most of the “outcomes” we identi�ed in this review to be outcomes until or unless there is su�cient evidence showing they in�uence the aforementioned distal health outcomes.

4. Consider strategic inclusion of outcomes that are widely accepted by healthcare organizations to facilitate outcomes‐based reimbursement

Given that genetic counselors function in healthcare settings highly concerned about reimbursement, it may be strategic to focus on “outcomes” that are strongly correlated with or have been shown to in�uence distal health outcomes. Nevertheless, we should recognize that certain “outcomes” may be important to patients even if they are not linked to health outcomes. Outcomes that are highly valued by patients could be considered for a di�erent type of quality measure by the National Quality Measures Clearinghouse because they re�ect patient‐centered care.

5. Increase the use of theoretical models or frameworks when designing outcomes studies

Theories, frameworks, and models may help researchers consider a broader array of outcomes and they also can provide a rationale for why we expect what we do to have an e�ect on certain outcomes (or not). In planning our review we did not consider extracting data about whether studies were informed by theoretical models or frameworks. However, we noted that the vast majority of studies did not mention these in their design considerations. Furthermore, several studies failed to provide a compelling rationale for why they selected the measures they chose.

6. Develop a standard set of well‐validated measures that can be harmonized across multiple types of genetic counseling studies

4/22/2021 A Rapid Systematic Review of Outcomes Studies in Genetic Counseling - Madlensky - 2017 - Journal of Genetic Counseling - Wiley Online Library

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1007/s10897-017-0067-x 14/20

Finally, having a standard set of de�ned outcomes and measures should help us more easily and more robustly build an evidence base for the genetic counseling profession; this would also allow for study comparisons and meta‐analyses in the future. However, we do not believe that this review provides enough information to make recommendations about standard measures. Before making such recommendations we believe it would be prudent to further evaluate and consider of the following:

Data on what outcomes are most important to patients/clients as well as other stakeholders (i.e., third‐party payers)

Theories, models, frameworks, and data to provide a rationale for or evidence linking genetic counseling processes to outcomes we identi�ed and to distal health outcomes

Review of outcome studies that did not meet our inclusion criteria or that were conducted in other healthcare contexts outside genetic counseling

The extent to which the measures have been demonstrated to be reliable, valid, and sensitive to change in various genetic counseling settings

Conclusions To date, there are no consistent measures of genetic counseling outcomes across studies. However, there is evidence that genetic counseling can increase knowledge, decrease distress, and lead to bene�ts for patients across several outcome measures. There is a need for further outcomes research measuring longer term and health outcomes and for research in a wider variety of genetic counseling settings.

Acknowledgements Support for Deborah Cragun's time was provided by a NCI R25T training grant awarded to Mo�tt Cancer Center (5R25CA147832‐04). The authors thank Eliza Jeong for assistance with formatting.

This manuscript was unfunded work completed as part of the National Society of Genetic Counselors Outcomes work group. We would like to thank NSGC leadership for helping to formulate the working group's study inclusion criteria for this review and for providing comments on an earlier draft of this manuscript.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Con�icts of Interest

4/22/2021 A Rapid Systematic Review of Outcomes Studies in Genetic Counseling - Madlensky - 2017 - Journal of Genetic Counseling - Wiley Online Library

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1007/s10897-017-0067-x 15/20

Austin, J. C., & Honer, W. G. (2008). Psychiatric genetic counselling for parents of individuals a�ected with psychotic disorders: a pilot study. Early Intervention in Psychiatry, 2(2), 80– 89. Wiley Online Library | PubMed | Web of Science® | Google Scholar

Baldwin, E. E., Boudreault, P., Fox, M., Sinsheimer, J. S., & Palmer, C. G. S. (2012). E�ect of pre‐test genetic counseling for deaf adults on knowledge of genetic testing. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 21(2), 256– 272. Wiley Online Library | PubMed | Web of Science® | Google Scholar

Berkenstadt, M., Shiloh, S., Barkai, G., Katznelson, M. B. M., & Goldman, B. (1999). Perceived personal control (PPC): a new concept in measuring outcome of genetic counseling. American Journal of Medical Genetics, 82(1), 53– 59. Wiley Online Library | CAS | PubMed | Web of Science® | Google Scholar

Bowen, D. J., Burke, W., Yasui, Y., McTiernan, A., & McLeran, D. (2002). E�ects of risk counseling on interest in breast cancer genetic testing for lower risk women. Genetics in Medicine, 4(5), 359– 365. Crossref | Google Scholar

Burke, W., Culver, J. O., Bowen, D., Lowry, D., Durfy, S., McTiernan, A., et al. (2000). Genetic counseling for women with an intermediate family history of breast cancer. American Journal of Medical Genetics, 90(5), 361– 368. Wiley Online Library | CAS | PubMed | Web of Science® | Google Scholar

Cabrera, E., Blanco, I., Yague, C., & Zabalegui, A. (2010). The impact of genetic counseling on knowledge and emotional responses in Spanish population with family history of breast cancer. Patient Education and Counseling, 78(3), 382– 388. Crossref | PubMed | Web of Science® | Google Scholar

Lisa Madlensky, Angela M. Trepanier, Deborah Cragun, Barbara Lerner, Kristen M. Shannon and Heather Zierhut declare that they have no con�ict of interest.

Human Studies and Informed Consent No human studies were carried out by the authors for this article.

Animal Studies No animal studies were carried out by the authors for this article.

References 

4/22/2021 A Rapid Systematic Review of Outcomes Studies in Genetic Counseling - Madlensky - 2017 - Journal of Genetic Counseling - Wiley Online Library

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1007/s10897-017-0067-x 16/20

Cavanagh, L., Compton, C. J., Tluczek, A., Brown, R. L., & Farrell, P. M. (2010). Long‐term evaluation of genetic counseling following false‐positive newborn screen for cystic �brosis. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 19(2), 199– 210. Wiley Online Library | PubMed | Web of Science® | Google Scholar

Cheuvront, B., Sorenson, J. R., Callanan, N. P., Stearns, S. C., & DeVellis, B. M. (1998). Psychosocial and educational outcomes associated with home‐ and clinic‐based pretest education and cystic �brosis carrier testing among a population of at‐risk relatives. American Journal of Medical Genetics, 75(5), 461– 468. Wiley Online Library | PubMed | Web of Science® | Google Scholar

Christie, J., Quinn, G. P., Malo, T., Lee, J.‐H., Zhao, X., McIntyre, J., et al. (2012). Cognitive and psychological impact of BRCA genetic counseling in before and after de�nitive surgery breast cancer patients. Annals of Surgical Oncology, 19(13), 4003– 4011. Crossref | Google Scholar

Ciske, D. J., Haavisto, A., Laxova, A., Rock, L. Z., & Farrell, P. M. (2001). Genetic counseling and neonatal screening for cystic �brosis: an assessment of the communication process. Pediatrics, 107(4), 699– 705. Crossref | CAS | PubMed | Web of Science® | Google Scholar

Ganann, R., Ciliska, D., & Thomas, H. (2010). Expediting systematic reviews: methods and implications of rapid reviews. Implementation Science, 5, 56. Crossref | PubMed | Web of Science® | Google Scholar

Grant, R. W., O'Brien, K. E., Waxler, J. L., Vassy, J. L., Delahanty, L. M., Bissett, L. G., et al. (2013). Personalized genetic risk counseling to motivate diabetes prevention: a randomized trial. Diabetes Care, 36(1), 13– 19. Crossref | PubMed | Web of Science® | Google Scholar

Green, M. J., Biesecker, B. B., McLnerney, A. M., Mauger, D., & Fost, N. (2001). An interactive computer program can e�ectively educate patients about genetic testing for breast cancer susceptibility. American Journal of Medical Genetics, 103(1), 16– 23. Wiley Online Library | CAS | PubMed | Web of Science® | Google Scholar

Green, M. J., Peterson, S. K., Baker, M. W., Harper, G. R., Friedman, L. C., Rubinstein, W. S., et al. (2004). E�ect of a computer‐based decision aid on knowledge, perceptions, and intentions about genetic testing for breast cancer susceptibility—a randomized controlled trial. Jama‐Journal of the American Medical Association, 292(4), 442– 452. Crossref | CAS | PubMed | Web of Science® | Google Scholar

Halbert, C. H., Kessler, L., Collier, A., Weathers, B., Stopfer, J., Domchek, S., et al. (2012). Low rates of African American participation in genetic counseling and testing for BRCA1/2 mutations: racial

4/22/2021 A Rapid Systematic Review of Outcomes Studies in Genetic Counseling - Madlensky - 2017 - Journal of Genetic Counseling - Wiley Online Library

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1007/s10897-017-0067-x 17/20

disparities or just a di�erence? Journal of Genetic Counseling, 21(5), 676– 683. Wiley Online Library | PubMed | Web of Science® | Google Scholar

Hippman, C., Ringrose, A., Inglis, A., Cheek, J., Albert, A. Y., Remick, R., & Honer, W. G. (2016). Austin JC A pilot randomized clinical trial evaluating the impact of genetic counseling for serious mental illnesses. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 77(2), e190– 8. Crossref | PubMed | Web of Science® | Google Scholar

Holmes‐Rovner, M., Kroll, J., Schmitt, N., Rovner, D.R., Breer, M. L., Rothert, M. L., Padonu, G., Talarczyk, G. (1996). Patient satisfaction with health care decisions: the satisfaction with decision scale. Medical Decision Making, 16(1), 58– 64. Crossref | CAS | PubMed | Web of Science® | Google Scholar

Hunter, A. G. W., Cappelli, M., Humphreys, L., Allanson, J. E., Chiu, T. T., Peeters, C., et al. (2005). A randomized trial comparing alternative approaches to prenatal diagnosis counseling in advanced maternal age patients. Clinical Genetics, 67(4), 303– 313. Wiley Online Library | CAS | PubMed | Web of Science® | Google Scholar

Kinney, A. Y., Boonyasiriwat, W., Walters, S. T., Pappas, L. M., Stroup, A. M., Schwartz, M. D., Edwards, S. L., Rogers, A., Kohlmann, W. K., Boucher, K. M., Vernon, S. W., Simmons, R. G., Lowery, J. T., Flores, K., Wiggins, C. L., Hill, D. A., Burt, R. W., Williams, M. S., & Higginbotham, J. C. (2014). Telehealth personalized cancer risk communication to motivate colonoscopy in relatives of patients with colorectal cancer: the family CARE Randomized controlled trial. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 32(7), 654– 62. Crossref | PubMed | Web of Science® | Google Scholar

Lerman, C., Schwartz, MD., Miller, SM., Daly, M., Sands, C., Rimer, BK. (1996). A randomized trial of breast cancer risk counseling: Interacting e�ects of counseling, educational level, and coping style. Health Psychology, 15(2), 75– 83. CAS | PubMed | Web of Science® | Google Scholar

MacDonald, D. J., Sarna, L., van Servellen, G., Bastani, R., Giger, J. N., & Weitzel, J. N. (2007). Selection of family members for communication of cancer risk and barriers to this communication before and after genetic cancer risk assessment. Genetics in Medicine, 9(5), 275– 282. Crossref | PubMed | Web of Science® | Google Scholar

McAllister, M., & Dearing, A. (2015). Patient reported outcomes and patient empowerment in clinical genetics services. Clinical Genetics, 88(2), 114– 121. Wiley Online Library | CAS | PubMed | Web of Science® | Google Scholar

McAllister, M., Wood, A. M., Dunn, G., Shiloh, S., & Todd, C. (2011). The genetic counseling outcome scale: a new patient‐reported out‐come measure for clinical genetics services. Clinical Genetics, 79(5), 413– 424. Wiley Online Library | CAS | PubMed | Web of Science® | Google Scholar

4/22/2021 A Rapid Systematic Review of Outcomes Studies in Genetic Counseling - Madlensky - 2017 - Journal of Genetic Counseling - Wiley Online Library

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1007/s10897-017-0067-x 18/20

McInerney‐Leo, A., Biesecker, B. B., Hadley, D. W., Kase, R. G., Giambarresi, T. R., Johnson, E., Lerman, C., & Struewing, J. P. (2004). BRCA1/2 testing in hereditary breast and ovarian cancer families: e�ectiveness of problem‐solving training as a counseling intervention. American Journal of Medical Genetics, 130A, 221– 227. Wiley Online Library | CAS | PubMed | Web of Science® | Google Scholar

McInerney‐Leo, A., Biesecker, B. B., Hadley, D. W., Kase, R. G., Giambarresi, T. R., Johnson, E., et al. (2005). BRCA1/2 testing in hereditary breast and ovarian cancer families II: impact on relationships. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A 133A(2), 165– 169. Wiley Online Library | CAS | PubMed | Web of Science® | Google Scholar

McInerney‐Leo, A., Hadley, D., Kase, R. G., Giambarresi, T. R., Struewing, J. P., & Biesecker, B. B. (2006). BRCA1/2 testing in hereditary breast and ovarian cancer families III: risk perception and screening. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A, 140(20), 2198– 206. Wiley Online Library | PubMed | Web of Science® | Google Scholar

Meiser, B., Butow, P. N., Barratt, A. L., Schnieden, V., Gattas, M., Kirk, J., et al. (2001). Long‐term outcomes of genetic counseling in women at increased risk of developing hereditary breast cancer. Patient Education and Counseling, 44(3), 215– 225. Crossref | CAS | PubMed | Web of Science® | Google Scholar

National Society of Genetic Counselors 2014 Professional Status Survey. (2014). Google Scholar

National Society of Genetic Counselors Code of Ethics. (2006). Retrieved Aug. 8, 2015, from http://nsgc.org/p/cm/ld/�d=12 Google Scholar

Pal, T., Stowe, C., Cole, A., Lee, J. H., Zhao, X., & Vadaparampil, S. (2010). Evaluation of phone‐based genetic counselling in African American women using culturally tailored visual aids. Clinical Genetics, 78(2), 124– 131. Wiley Online Library | CAS | PubMed | Web of Science® | Google Scholar

Palmer, C. G., Boudreault, P., Baldwin, E. E., Sinsheimer, J. S. (2014). Impact of genetic counseling and Connexin‐26 and Connexin‐30 testing on deaf identity and comprehension of genetic test results in a sample of deaf adults: a prospective, longitudinal study. PLoS One, 9(11), e111512. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0111512. Crossref | Google Scholar

Pieterse, A. H., Ausems, M. G. E. M., Spreeuwenberg, P., & van Dulmen, S. (2011). Longer‐term in�uence of breast cancer genetic counseling on cognitions and distress: smaller bene�ts for a�ected versus una�ected women. Patient Education and Counseling, 85(3), 425– 431. Crossref | Google Scholar

4/22/2021 A Rapid Systematic Review of Outcomes Studies in Genetic Counseling - Madlensky - 2017 - Journal of Genetic Counseling - Wiley Online Library

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1007/s10897-017-0067-x 19/20

Download PDF

Practice Based Competencies for Genetic Counselors. (2013). Retrieved 8‐8‐2015, from http://gceducation.org/Documents/ACGC%20Practice%20Based%20Competencies_13‐Final‐Web.pdf Google Scholar

Randall, J., Butow, P., Kirk, J., & Tucker, K. (2001). Psychological impact of genetic counselling and testing in women previously diagnosed with breast cancer. Internal Medicine Journal, 31(7), 397– 405. Wiley Online Library | Web of Science® | Google Scholar

Rutherford, S., Zhang, X., Atzinger, C., Ruschman, J., & Myers, M. F. (2014). Medical management adherence as an outcome of genetic counseling in a pediatric setting. Genetics in Medicine, 16(2), 157– 163. Crossref | PubMed | Web of Science® | Google Scholar

Shiloh, S., Avdor, O., & Goodman, R. M. (1990). Satisfaction with genetic counseling: dimensions and measurement. American Journal of Medical Genetics, 37(4), 522– 529. Wiley Online Library | CAS | PubMed | Web of Science® | Google Scholar

Silvey, K., Stock, J., Hasegawa, L. E., & Au, S. M. (2009). Outcomes of genetics services: creating an inclusive de�nition and outcomes menu for public health and clinical genetics services. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part C: Seminars in Medical Genetics, 151C(3), 207– 213. Wiley Online Library | CAS | PubMed | Web of Science® | Google Scholar

Taylor, J. Y., & Wu, C. Y. (2009). E�ects of genetic counseling for hypertension on changes in lifestyle behaviors among African‐American women. Journal of National Black Nurses' Association: JNBNA, 20(1), 1– 10. Google Scholar

Working Group of the American College of Medical Genetics: competencies for the physician medical geneticist in the 21st century. (2011). Google Scholar

Citing Literature 

About Wiley Online Library

4/22/2021 A Rapid Systematic Review of Outcomes Studies in Genetic Counseling - Madlensky - 2017 - Journal of Genetic Counseling - Wiley Online Library

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1007/s10897-017-0067-x 20/20

Privacy Policy Terms of Use

Cookies Accessibility

Help & Support

Contact Us DMCA & Reporting Piracy

Opportunities

Subscription Agents Advertisers & Corporate Partners

Connect with Wiley

The Wiley Network Wiley Press Room

Copyright © 1999-2021 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved