The Unified Huntington's Disease Rating Scale (UHDRS) was developed as a clinical rating scale to assess four domains of clinical performance and capacity in HD: motor function, cognitive function, behavioral abnormalities, and functional capacity. We assessed the internal consistency and the intercorrelations for the four domains and examined changes in ratings over time. We also performed an interrater reliability study of the motor assessment. We found there was a high degree of internal consistency within each of the domains of the UHDRS and that there were significant intercorrelations between the domains of the UHDRS, with the exception of the total behavioral score. There was an excellent degree of interrater reliability for the motor scores. Our limited longitudinal database indicates that the UHDRS may be useful for tracking changes in the clinical features of HD over time. The UHDRS assesses relevant clinical features of HD and appears to be appropriate for repeated administration during clinical studies.

We explored how individuals at-risk for HD who have or have not been tested make reproductive decisions and what factors are involved. We interviewed 21 individuals (8 with and 4 without the mutation, and 9 un-tested) in-depth for 2 hours each. At-risk individuals faced a difficult series of dilemmas of whether to: get pregnant and deliver, have fetal testing, have pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, adopt, or have no children. These individuals weighed competing desires and concerns: their own desires vs. those of spouses vs. broader moral concerns (e.g., to end the disease; and/or follow dictates against abortion) vs. perceptions of the interests of current or future offspring. Quandaries arose of how much and to whom to feel responsible. Some changed their perspectives over time (e.g., first "gambling," then being more cautious). These data have critical implications for genetic counselors and other health care workers and future research, particularly as more genetic tests become available.

Patterns of disclosure of Huntington disease risk and genetic test results among family members are important, but have been underexplored. We interviewed 21 individuals in-depth - eight mutation-positive for HD, four mutation-negative, and nine not tested - for 2 hr each. Within families, critical questions arose of what, when, and to whom to disclose, and what to do post-disclosure. Interviewees wrestled with dilemmas of what to tell (e.g., suspicions vs. confirmed symptoms; initiation vs. completion of testing; partial vs. indirect information), how to disclose (e.g., planning in advance vs. "blurting out" information in arguments), and whether and how to tell extended family members. Questions arose of when to tell (i.e., to avoid disclosing "too early" or "too late"). Similarities and differences emerged related to types of relationships (e.g., parents telling offspring vs. offspring telling parents vs. siblings telling each other). Individuals often disclosed because of perceived duty to foster the health of their family members, enabling these others to pursue appropriate medical evaluation, if desired. Yet tensions arose because the information could burden these members, who also have rights to remain "in denial" if they wish and not discuss the topic or pursue testing. Post-disclosure, dilemmas emerged of whether and how much to encourage family members to pursue testing. These data shed important light on critical issues that have received little, if any, attention concerning what, how, and when disclosure occurs, and have key implications for at-risk individuals, genetic counselors, and other health care workers (HCWs), and for future research. At-risk individuals would benefit from considering these issues in advance. HCWs need to realize that these decisions are multi-faceted. Future research can explore whether, when, how, and how often HCWs raise these issues with individuals.

Decision-making theories applied to Huntington disease testing have frequently drawn on psychological models, yet the current data highlight the importance of social contexts and relationships in testing decisions. This report, the first to our knowledge to explore individuals' perceptions of social factors (particularly family and health care worker involvement) in Huntington disease testing decisions, has critical implications for practice, education, research, and policy.

Hereditary neurodegenerative diseases can present with a psychiatric prodrome that overlaps with psychiatric symptoms that are not primary to these diseases. When individuals present for predictive testing while experiencing such symptoms, clinicians including genetic counselors, must proceed with caution and evaluate each situation on a case-by-case basis. Legitimate reasons may exist for moving forward with testing. Additionally predicting the consequences of testing is unrealistic so that the clinicians must do their best to prepare patients for both positive and negative results. A multidisciplinary team following the Huntington disease protocol remains the gold standard care for predictive testing for such patients. We discuss 3 case histories that demonstrate the complex nature of genetic counseling and testing in the presence of psychiatric symptoms, whether emanating from the disease itself or the results of living in an affected family.