Telephone versus in-person genetic counseling for hereditary cancer risk: Patient predictors of differential outcomes.

Purpose: Telegenetics has become the predominant mode of cancer genetic counseling during the COVID-19 pandemic. We sought to identify potential patient-level contraindicators for telegenetic genetic counseling.
Methods: We analyzed post-counseling (pre-result disclosure) follow-up data from a randomized noninferiority trial of a telephone genetic counseling versus usual care genetic counseling. Among 669 randomized participants, 600 completed pre-test counseling and 568 completed a 2-week follow-up assessment before receiving test results. In this analysis, we focused on genetic counseling outcomes (knowledge, decisional conflict, and distress). In multivariate models controlling for bivariate predictors of these outcomes, we tested our a priori hypotheses that pre-counseling numeracy, perceived stress, and race/ethnicity would moderate the outcomes of telephone genetic counseling versus usual care.
Results: Only numeracy significantly moderated associations between mode of genetic counseling and outcomes. Higher numeracy was associated with higher post-counseling knowledge following telephone genetic counseling ( p  < 0.001), but not usual care ( p  = 0.450). Higher numeracy was also associated with lower distress following telephone genetic counseling ( p  = 0.009) but not usual care ( p  = 0.16). Neither perceived stress nor race/ethnicity exhibited differential impacts on telephone genetic counseling versus usual care ( p s > 0.20).
Conclusion: Although high numeracy was associated with higher levels of knowledge following telegenetic counseling, we did not identify any clinically significant patient-level contraindicators for telegenetic counseling. These results lend further confidence to the broad use of telegenetics.
Competing Interests: Declaration of conflicting interestsThe author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Ms Binion, Ms Sorgen, Ms Peshkin, Dr Valdimarsdottir, Ms Nusbaum, Ms DeMarco, Dr Graves, Ms McKinnon, Dr Wood, Ms McCormick, Ms Ladd, and Dr Schwartz declare that they have no conflicts of interest. Dr Judy Garber serves on an advisory board for Helix Genetics, has a leadership role for a trial at AstraZeneca, and receives research support from Ambry Genetics. Dr Claudine Isaacs has consultancies with AstraZeneca, Pfizer and received research support (to institution) from GlaxoSmithKline.