Key result
A communication aid did not significantly improve the ability and confidence of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy probands to communicate genetic results to at-risk relatives compared to standard care (59% vs 50%, p=0.26).
Why the study?
Communication of genetic test results to probands and family members can be a barrier to effective uptake, prompting evaluation of whether a communication aid facilitates effective communication and risk knowledge.
Does a communication aid improve the ability and confidence to communicate genetic results to at-risk relatives in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy?
RCT (n=42)
Open-label
Computer-generated random list
No
Does a communication aid improve the ability and confidence to communicate genetic results to at-risk relatives in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy?
Absolute Event Rate: 59% vs 50%
p-value: p=0.26
A communication aid did not significantly improve communication of genetic results in HCM families compared to standard care, highlighting a persistent gap in supporting family genetic communication.
Genetic communication aid failed to significantly improve HCM family disclosure; leaves open need for better strategies given 29% of relatives uninformed.
Introduction Genetic testing for hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) is considered a key aspect of management. Communication of genetic test results to the proband and their family members, can be a barrier to effective uptake. We hypothesized that a communication aid would facilitate effective communication, and sought to evaluate knowledge and communication of HCM risk to at-risk relatives. Methods This was a prospective randomized controlled trial. Consecutive HCM patients attending a specialized clinic, who agreed to participate, were randomized to the intervention or current clinical practice. The intervention consisted of a genetic counselorled appointment, separate to their clinical cardiology review, and guided by a communication booklet which could be written in and taken home. Current clinical practice was defined as the return of the genetic result by a genetic counselor and cardiologist, often as part of a clinical cardiology review. The primary outcome was the ability and confidence of the individual to communicate genetic results to at-risk relatives. Results The a priori outcome of improved communication amongst HCM families did not show statistically significant differences between the control and intervention group, though the majority of probands in the intervention group achieved fair communication (n=13/22) and had higher genetic knowledge scores than those in the control group (7 ± 3 versus 6 ± 3). A total of 29% of at-risk relatives were not informed of a genetic result in their family. Conclusion Communication amongst HCM families remains challenging, with nearly a third of at-risk relatives not informed of a genetic result. We show a significant gap in the current approach to supporting family communication about genetics. Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12617000706370 What is known about this topic Communication between family members regarding genetic testing can be a barrier to effective uptake. What this paper adds to the topic Communication is a challenge in HCM families, with nearly a third of at-risk relatives not informed of a genetic result. There is a significant gap in the current approaches to supporting family communication about genetics.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Burns et al. (2021) conducted an RCT in Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (n=42). Communication aid booklet and genetic counselor-led appointment vs. Current clinical practice (return of genetic result by genetic counselor and cardiologist during clinical review) was evaluated on Ability and confidence of the proband to communicate genetic results to at-risk relatives (fair vs poor) (p=0.26). A communication aid did not significantly improve the ability and confidence of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy probands to communicate genetic results to at-risk relatives compared to standard care (59% vs 50%, p=0.26).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: