Genetic counselors (GCs) have traditionally been trained to adopt a position of equipoise or clinical neutrality. They provide information, answer questions, address barriers, and engage in shared decision‐making, but generally, they do not prescribe a genetic test. Historically, GCs have generally been trained not to persuade the ambivalent or resistant patient. More recently, however, there has been discussion regarding when a greater degree of persuasion or directionality may be appropriate within genetic counseling (GC) and what role MI may play in this process. The role for “persuasive GC” is based on the premise that some genetic tests provide actionable information that would clearly benefit patients and families by impacting treatment or surveillance. For other tests, the benefits are less clear as they do not directly impact patient care or the benefits may be more subjective in nature, driven by patient values or psychological needs. For the former, we propose that GCs may adopt a more persuasive clinical approach while for the latter, a more traditional equipoise stance may be more appropriate. We suggest that motivational interviewing (MI) could serve as a unifying counseling model that allows GCs to handle both persuasive and equipoise encounters. For clearly beneficial tests, while directional, the MI encounter can still be non‐directive, autonomy‐supportive, and patient‐centered. MI can also be adapted for equipoise situations, for example, placing less emphasis on eliciting and strengthening change talk as that is more a behavior change strategy than a shared decision‐making strategy. The core principles and strategies of MI, such as autonomy support, evocation, open questions, reflective listening, and affirmation would apply to both persuasive and equipoise encounters. Key issues that merit discussion include how best to train GCs both during their initial and post‐graduate education.

Background Only a small proportion of patients who qualify for clinical genetic testing for cancer susceptibility get testing. Many patient‐level barriers contribute to low uptake. In this study, we examined self‐reported patient barriers and motivators for cancer genetic testing. Methods A survey comprised of both new and existing measures related to barriers and motivators to genetic testing was emailed to patients with a diagnosis of cancer at a large academic medical center. Patients who self‐reported receiving a genetic test were included in these analyses ( n = 376). Responses about emotions following testing as well as barriers and motivators prior to getting testing were examined. Group differences in barriers and motivators by patient demographic characteristics were examined. Results Being assigned female at birth was associated with increased emotional, insurance, and family concerns as well as increased health benefits compared to patients assigned male at birth. Younger respondents had significantly higher emotional and family concerns compared to older respondents. Recently diagnosed respondents expressed fewer concerns about insurance implications and emotional concerns. Those with a BRCA‐related cancer had higher scores on social and interpersonal concerns scale than those with other cancers. Participants with higher depression scores indicated increased emotional, social and interpersonal, and family concerns. Conclusions Self‐reported depression emerged as the most consistent factor influencing report of barriers to genetic testing. By incorporating mental health resources into clinical practice, oncologists may better identify those patients who might need more assistance following through with a referral for genetic testing and the response afterwards.

Background Although most cancers are sporadic, germline genetic variants are implicated in 5–10% of cancer cases. Clinical genetic testing identifies pathogenic germline genetic variants for hereditary cancers. The Michigan Genetic Hereditary Testing (MiGHT) study is a three-arm randomized clinical trial that aims to test the efficacy of two patient-level behavioral interventions on uptake of cancer genetic testing. Methods The two interventions being tested are (1) a virtual genetics navigator and (2) motivational interviewing by genetic health coaches. Eligible participants are adults with a diagnosis of breast, prostate, endometrial, ovarian, colorectal, or pancreatic cancer who meet the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) criteria for genetic testing. Participants are recruited through community oncology practices affiliated with the Michigan Oncology Quality Consortium (MOQC) and have used the Family Health History Tool (FHHT) to determine testing eligibility. The recruitment goal is 759 participants, who will be randomized to usual care or to either the virtual genetics navigator or the motivational interviewing intervention arms. The primary outcome will be the proportion of individuals who complete germline genetic testing within 6 months. Discussion This study addresses patient-level factors which are associated with the uptake of genetic testing. The study will test two different intervention approaches, both of which can help address the shortage of genetic counselors and improve access to care. Trial registration This study has been approved by the Institutional Review Board of the University of Michigan Medical School (HUM00192898) and registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05162846).

PURPOSE: Increased access and utilization of tumor profiling of cancers in our veteran population uncovered a modest number of potentially pathogenic germline variants (PPGVs) that require genetics referral for follow-up evaluation and germline sequencing. Challenges identified specific to the veteran population include paucity of genetics providers, either at a veteran's VA facility or nearby non-VA facilities. We sought to investigate the number of veterans who would benefit from having such resources at both local and national levels. METHODS: Annotated clinical reports of mutations identified by tumor-only profiling and medical records of veterans with solid tumors at the Veterans Administration Ann Arbor Healthcare System (VA AAHS) between 2015 and 2020 were reviewed. PPGVs were identified according to society recommendations (such as ESMO and American Board of Medical Genetics and Genomics), expert review, and/or previously published criteria. After the analysis of our local VA population, these same criteria were then applied to veterans in the National Precision Oncology Program (NPOP). RESULTS: Two hundred eight veterans underwent tumor profiling at the VA AAHS over the defined time period. This included 20 different primary tumor sites with over half (n = 130) being advanced cancer at diagnosis. Of these, 18 veterans (8.5%) had mutations suggestive of a PPGV. Applying these criteria to the larger NPOP database (n = 20,014), a similar percentage (6%) of PPGVs were identified. CONCLUSION: These results indicate a PPGV frequency (6%-9% of veterans) consistent with the prevalence of inherited cancer predisposition syndromes in the general population, underscoring the need for medical genetics as part of standard oncologic care for veterans. We explore current and future care delivery models to optimize incorporation of medical genetics and genetic counseling to best serve veterans needing such services.