Top

Published in:

01-02-2011 | Original Research

The Development of a Methodology for Examining the Process of Family Communication of Genetic Test Results

Authors: Jonathan A. Smith, Caroline Dancyger, Melissa Wallace, Chris Jacobs, Susan Michie

Published in: Journal of Genetic Counseling | Issue 1/2011

Abstract

It is important to study communication processes in families where members are undergoing testing for genetic conditions because the information received from such testing is crucial not just to the individual concerned but also to other members of the biological family. This topic has received little research attention, in part because of the complexities of methodology required. In this paper we present the development of a method specifically designed for the examination of the content and process of communication of genetic information in families. The method aims to maximize ecological validity as far as is possible. We describe how participants and other family members are recruited and how data were collected. We outline three main data analytic strategies: a graphic to show how genetic information changes as it flows from clinic and through the family, an intensive qualitative analysis of the meaning and impact of the genetic information to different family members, and an informative genogram which plots key family dynamics. This method will be illustrated in relation to a study of ten family-groups where one individual has been found to carry a genetic mutation predisposing them to hereditary breast and ovarian cancer.

Allport, G. W. (1963). Pattern and growth in personality. London: Holt Rinehart and Winston.

Antoniou, A., Pharoah, P. D. P., Narod, S., Risch, H. A., Eyfjord, J. E., Hopper, J. L., et al. (2003). Average risks of breast and ovarian cancer associated with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations detected in case series unselected for family history: a combined analysis of 22 studies. The American Journal of Human Genetics, 72(5), 1117–1130.CrossRef

Bonadona, V., Saltel, P., Desseigne, F. O., Mignotte, H., Saurin, J. C., Wang, Q., et al. (2002). Cancer patients who experienced diagnostic genetic testing for cancer susceptibility: reactions and behavior after the disclosure of a positive test result. Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention, 11(1), 97–104.

Claes, E., Evers-Kiebooms, G., Boogaerts, A., Decruyenaere, M., Denayer, L., & Legius, E. (2003). Communication with close and distant relatives in the context of genetic testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer in cancer patients. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A, 116A(1), 11–19.CrossRefPubMed

Clarke, S., Butler, K., & Esplen, M. J. (2008). The phases of disclosing BRCA1/2 genetic information to offspring. Psycho-oncology, 17(8), 797–803.CrossRefPubMed

Claus, E. B., Risch, N., & Thompson, W. D. (1991). Genetic-analysis of breast-cancer in the cancer and steroid-hormone study. American Journal of Human Genetics, 48(2), 232–242.PubMed

Costalas, J. W., Itzen, M., Malick, J., Babb, J. S., Bove, B., Godwin, A. K., et al. (2003). Communication of BRCA1 and BRCA2 results to at-risk relatives: a cancer risk assessment program’s experience. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part C-Seminars in Medical Genetics, 119C(1), 11–18.CrossRef

d’Agincourt-Canning, L. (2001). Experiences of genetic risk: disclosure and the gendering of responsibility. Bioethics, 15(3), 231–247.CrossRefPubMed

Durant, J., Hansen, A., & Bauer, M. (1999). Public understanding of the new genetics. In T. M. Marteau & M. Richards (Eds.), The troubled helix: Social and psychological implications of the new human genetics (pp. 235–248). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Forrest, L. E., Curnow, L., Delatycki, M. B., Skene, L., & Aitken, M. (2008). Health first, genetics second: exploring families’ experiences of communicating genetic information. European Journal of Human Genetics, 16, 1329–1335.CrossRefPubMed

Foster, C., Eeles, R., Ardern-Jones, A., Moynihan, C., & Watson, M. (2004). Juggling roles and expectations: dilemmas faced by women talking to relatives about cancer and genetic testing. Psychology & Health, 19(4), 439–455.CrossRef

Gaff, C. L., Clarke, A. J., Atkinson, P., Sivell, S., Elwyn, G., Iredale, R., et al. (2007). Process and outcome in communication of genetic information within families: a systematic review. European Journal of Human Genetics, 15(10), 999–1011.CrossRefPubMed

Hallowell, N., Ardern-Jones, A., Eeles, R., Foster, C., Lucassen, A., Moynihan, C., et al. (2005). Communication about genetic testing in families of male BRCA1/2 carriers and non-carriers: patterns, priorities and problems. Clinical Genetics, 67(6), 492–502.CrossRefPubMed

Hamilton, R. J., Bowers, B. J., & Williams, J. K. (2005). Disclosing genetic test results to family members. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 37(1), 18–24.CrossRefPubMed

Haywood, S. (2007). Reinvigorating the qualitative brand. The Psychologist, 20(5), 276.

Michie, S., Smith, J. A., Senior, V., & Marteau, T. M. (2003). Understanding why negative genetic test results sometimes fail to reassure. American Journal of Medical Genetics, 119A, 340–347.CrossRefPubMed

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook. London: Sage.

Peters, J. A., Hoskins, L., Prindiville, S., Kenen, R., & Greene, M. H. (2006). Evolution of the Colored Eco-Genetic Relationship Map (CEGRM) for assessing social functioning in women in hereditary breast-ovarian (HBOC) families. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 15, 477–489.CrossRefPubMed

Ritchie, J., & Spencer, L. (1994). Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research. In A. Bryman & R. G. Burgess (Eds.), Analyzing qualitative data (pp. 173–194). London: Routledge.CrossRef

Robinson, O., & Smith, J. A. (2010). Investigating the form and dynamics of crisis episodes in early adulthood: the application of a composite qualitative method. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 7, 170–190.

Smith, J. A. (2004). Reflecting on the development of interpretative phenomenological analysis and its contribution to qualitative research in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 1, 39–54.

Smith, J. A., Brewer, H., Eatough, V., Stanley, C., Glendinning, N., & Quarrell, O. (2006). The personal experience of Juvenile Huntington’s Disease: an interpretative phenomenological analysis of parents’ accounts of the primary features of a rare genetic condition. Clinical Genetics, 69, 486–496.CrossRefPubMed

Smith, J. A., Flowers, P., & Larkin, M. (2009). Interpretative phenomenological analysis. London: Sage.

Wilson, B. J., Forrest, K., van Teijlingen, E. R., Mckee, L., Haites, N., Matthews, E., et al. (2004). Family communication about genetic risk: the little that is known. Community Genetics, 7(1), 15–24.CrossRefPubMed

Title: The Development of a Methodology for Examining the Process of Family Communication of Genetic Test Results
Authors: Jonathan A. Smith
Caroline Dancyger
Melissa Wallace
Chris Jacobs
Susan Michie
Publication date: 01-02-2011
Publisher: Springer US
Published in: Journal of Genetic Counseling / Issue 1/2011
Print ISSN: 1059-7700
Electronic ISSN: 1573-3599
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-010-9317-x

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

The Development of a Methodology for Examining the Process of Family Communication of Genetic Test Results

Abstract

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2011

Communication of Genetic Risk Information to Daughters in Families with Fragile X Syndrome: The Parent’s Perspective

Genetic Counseling Considerations in the Evaluation of Families for Lynch Syndrome—A Review

Boundary Issues and Multiple Relationships in Genetic Counseling Supervision: Supervisor, Non-supervisor, and Student Perspectives

“In Sickness and in Health”? Disclosures of Genetic Risks in Dating

Prevalence of Genetic Testing in CHARGE Syndrome

Genetic Counseling in a Busy Pediatric Metabolic Practice