Review
Analyzing communication in genetic consultations—A systematic review

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2014.09.017Get rights and content

Highlights

  • We review studies that explored communication within genetic consultations.

  • Twenty-two studies published in 50 articles were included in this review.

  • Studies identified clinician dialog dominating with talk being mostly biomedical.

  • Many studies explored risk communication and genetic counseling principles.

  • Studies used a variety of designs and analytical approaches.

Abstract

Objective

To systematically review studies that have analyzed communication within medical consultations involving genetic specialists and report on their findings and design.

Methods

Drawing from PRISMA and appropriate guidelines for reviewing qualitative research, a systematic search of seven databases was conducted, followed by selection of studies for inclusion based on a set of criteria. Three authors conducted data extraction and narrative synthesis.

Results

Twenty-two studies were identified and were heterogeneous in setting, design, and methods, with many including limited descriptions of health professionals involved. Despite this variability, studies generally pursued the following three main objectives: searching for structural patterns within consultations, investigating communication and genetic counseling concepts, and linking process with input- and outcome-measures. Structural patterns identified included clinician dialog dominating consultations, and talk being mostly biomedical. Counseling and communication concepts investigated were: risk communication, the negotiation of power and knowledge, and adherence to genetic counseling ideals. Attempts to link consultation data to input- or outcome-measures were often unsuccessful.

Conclusion

More interdisciplinary research, grounded in appropriate theoretical frameworks, is needed to explore inherent complexities in this setting.

Practice implications

Findings from this review can be used to guide the design of future research into the process of genetic consultations.

Introduction

For almost 35 years senior figures in genetic medicine have called for more studies investigating the content and process of genetic consultations, describing consultations as a ‘black box’ [1], [2], [3], [4]. Clarke argued that assessing outcome-measures alone will not allow for adequate description and evaluation of genetic consultations [3]. While there have been previous reviews of process studies in genetics [5], [6] none have systematically reviewed their methods or findings. This paper aims to address that gap.

Clients are referred to genetic counseling (GC) for diagnosis, management, support and treatment of genetic conditions [7]. Genetic healthcare covers a range of services including population screening, prenatal diagnosis, and genetic testing for conditions affecting a range of life-stages such as infant or pediatric, adult-onset such as cancer, and susceptibility testing. GC has been described as a ‘hybrid activity’ combining traditional aspects of medical consultations with those from counseling disciplines [8]. GC involves communicating complex and abstract information while supporting clients to make informed decisions about possible testing and adjust to their genetic identity [7], [9], [10]. Clarke describes GC as different to other medical interactions where instead of providing treatments, specialists provide information and support [3]. Debate exists around GC ideals, particularly the principle of ‘non-directiveness’ [11], [12], [13] where clinicians “promote and enhance the autonomy and self-directedness of clients” [14, p. 164]. In Australia, genetic services are mostly offered through tertiary hospitals by a multidisciplinary team that may include clinical geneticists, genetic counselors and social workers. In various countries, these specialists may be referred to with different titles; for the purpose of this review they will all be referred to as clinicians.

With the introduction of new genomic technologies, clinicians may now provide answers to more clients than previously possible [15]. Although increasing diagnostic yield, these technologies introduce novel challenges relating to incidental and uncertain test results [16], particularly how and what to communicate to clients [15], [17], [18], [19].

Complexities of clinician–client relationships can be explored through analyzing medical interactions [20] where a better understanding of this relationship may increase the ‘therapeutic potential’ of medical visits [21, p. 6].

One approach to researching communication processes utilizes quantitative methodologies where ‘talk’ is broadly coded and classified, investigating communication behaviors and patterns. Byrne and Long classified consultations into phases [22] adapting Bales’ coding system, interaction process analysis (IPA), for use in coding medical interactions [23]. Another method is the Roter Interaction Analysis System (RIAS), a widely used tool in medical interaction assessment [24], where speech is ‘unitized’ and ‘categorized’ following a systematic pre-determined coding schedule [21, p. 51–2].

An alternative approach involves a microanalysis using qualitative techniques. Qualitative research generally uses an inductive approach to asks questions such as ‘why?’ and ‘how?’ thereby allowing the researcher to delve deeply into the data and allow meanings to ‘emerge’, often with no preconceived hypothesis [25], [26], [27], [28]. Researchers undertaking this approach are typically sociologists, linguists, and anthropologists. Examples of particular analytical designs include: discourse analysis (DA), conversation analysis (CA), interactional sociolinguistics (IS), pragmatics, and ethnography. Sarangi and Roberts describe this approach as a ‘thick’ description, which “reaches down to the level of fine-grained linguistic analysis and up and out to broader ethnographic description and wider political and ideological accounts [29, p. 1]. Qualitative approaches acknowledge the importance of context in understanding complexities and nuances in interactions.

Although debate exists around which approach is most suitable, it has been argued that a combination of qualitative and quantitative approaches can enable a ‘thick’ description to be assessed across larger data sets and potentially become generalizable [20].

Since 1996, three articles have reviewed studies analyzing genetic interactions [3], [5], [6], although these were not systematic reviews.

In 1996, Clarke et al. reviewed GC process- and outcome-based studies, of which only a few had been conducted [3]. The authors contended that GC, centering largely on provision and reception of information, should include assessments different to other medical specialties where outcome-based approaches might be suitable [3]. In 2001, Biesecker and Peters published an overview of GC process- and outcome-based studies [6]. They recommended more process studies in GC, which would assist in defining their profession.

Meiser et al. in 2008 published a critical review of empirical research studies that assessed the process of genetic consultations [5]. They excluded studies with a small sample size or those where consultations had not been audio or video-recorded and concluded that GC is often ‘provider’-driven, with a large proportion of talk being biomedical or educational rather than psychosocial. A limitation of this review was the exclusion of several seminal studies exploring GC principles, due to their sample size [2], [30], [31], [32], [33].

There has been no systematic review of studies that have analyzed interactions in genetic consultations. The aims of this systematic review are to:

  • (1)

    Summarize key findings from studies analyzing medical interactions between patients and genetic specialists, and

  • (2)

    Describe the range of methodological approaches used in this body of research, focusing in particular on methods of analysis of genetic consultations.

Section snippets

Design

This systematic review was guided by:

  • PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews [34] and;

  • Economic and Social Research Council UK guidelines for conducting reviews incorporating qualitative research [35].

Search strategy

Seven electronic databases were searched (Table 1). Reference lists were hand-searched to identify additional relevant studies missed by this search strategy.

Assessment for inclusion of studies

Studies were included if they satisfied the inclusion criteria (Table 2). These articles were independently assessed by two authors

Search outcome

Fig. 1 summarizes the search outcome. The initial search strategy yielded 795 unique articles, from which 74 were retained for full text review, to which were added four identified from other sources. After excluding those that did not meet eligibility criteria, 67 were retained for preliminary analysis. A further 17 were excluded, resulting in a final set of 50 articles, reporting 22 unique studies, for the review [1], [2], [30], [31], [32], [33], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44]

Discussion

This review identified 22 different studies published in 50 articles exploring communication within genetic consultations. These studies have contributed to our understanding of the process of GC and explored many different genetic settings including cancer, prenatal, general, and pediatric consultations.

While studies varied greatly in setting and design, this review identified some overarching themes. Firstly, as previously identified [5] and perhaps not surprisingly, clinician dialog appeared

Conclusions

Twenty-two studies across 50 articles were identified that explored communication within genetic consultations. Many quantitative studies found that clinician dialog dominated and talk was mostly biomedical or educational rather than psychosocial. They explored various topics relevant to GC practice including risk communication and assessing GC principles. Studies used a variety of approaches and design, although the majority of studies (15) used qualitative approaches, and only five studies

Practice implications

This review highlights the complexity and variety of medical communication-based research. Findings from this review can be used to inform the development of future process studies in this area. As this and other reviews have identified [5], [6], more research is needed to investigate if genetic consultations are addressing the needs of clients particularly in terms of the counseling content.

Results demonstrate the importance of context in understanding and interpreting medical encounters.

Conflict of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

Acknowledgements

The primary author, Jean Paul, is a PhD student and is supported with an Australian Postgraduate Award and was supported by the Victorian Government's Operational Infrastructure Support Program. We are grateful to Jennifer Warburton, Library Research Consultant, at the Melbourne School of Graduate Research, The University of Melbourne, for her consultation with the search strategy.

References (101)

  • E. Lehtinen

    Hedging, knowledge and interaction: doctors’ and clients’ talk about medical information and client experiences in genetic counseling

    Patient Educ Couns

    (2013)
  • S. Michie et al.

    Information recall in genetic counselling: a pilot study of its assessment

    Patient Educ Couns

    (1997)
  • A.H. Pieterse et al.

    Tailoring communication in cancer genetic counseling through individual video-supported feedback: a controlled pretest-posttest design

    Patient Educ Couns

    (2006)
  • A. Lippman-Hand et al.

    Genetic counseling: provision and reception of information

    Am J Med Genet

    (1979)
  • S. Kessler et al.

    Psychological aspects of genetic counseling: analysis of a transcript

    Am J Med Genet

    (1981)
  • A. Clarke et al.

    Outcomes and process in genetic counselling

    Clin Genet

    (1996)
  • S. Kessler

    Psychological aspects of genetic counseling: XII. More on counseling skills

    J Genet Couns

    (1998)
  • B. Meiser et al.

    Assessment of the content and process of genetic counseling: a critical review of empirical studies

    J Genet Couns

    (2008)
  • B.B. Biesecker et al.

    Process studies in genetic counseling: peering into the black box

    Am J Med Genet

    (2001)
  • R. Resta et al.

    A new definition of genetic counseling: National Society of Genetic Counselors’ Task Force report

    J Genet Couns

    (2006)
  • S. Sarangi

    Activity types, discourse types and interactional hybridity: the case of genetic counselling

  • B. Godard et al.

    Provision of genetic services in Europe: current practices and issues

    Eur J Hum Genet

    (2003)
  • H. Skirton et al.

    The role of the genetic counsellor: a systematic review of research evidence

    Eur J Hum Genet

    (2014)
  • J. Weil et al.

    The relationship of nondirectiveness to genetic counseling: report of a workshop at the 2003 NSGC annual education conference

    J Genet Couns

    (2006)
  • G. Elwyn et al.

    Shared decision making and non-directiveness in genetic counselling

    J Med Genet

    (2000)
  • S. Kessler

    Psychological aspects of genetic counseling. XI: Nondirectiveness revisited

    Am J Med Genet

    (1997)
  • C.G. van El et al.

    Whole-genome sequencing in health care: recommendations of the European Society of Human Genetics

    Eur J Hum Genet

    (2013)
  • M. Reiff et al.

    Physicians’ perspectives on the uncertainties and implications of chromosomal microarray testing of children and families

    Clin Genet

    (2013)
  • E. Turbitt et al.

    Key informants’ perspectives of implementing chromosomal microarrays into clinical practice in Australia

    Twin Res Hum Genet

    (2013)
  • E. Turbitt et al.

    Preferences for results from genomic microarrays: comparing parents and health care providers

    Clin Genet

    (2014)
  • E. Turbitt et al.

    Availability of treatment drives decisions of genetic health professionals about disclosure of incidental findings

    Eur J Hum Genet

    (2014)
  • J. Heritage et al.

    Communication in medical care: interaction between primary care physicians and patients

    (2006)
  • D. Roter et al.

    Doctors talking with patients/patients talking with doctors: improving communication in medical visists

    (2006)
  • P.S. Byrne et al.

    Doctors talking to patients: a study of the verbal behaviour of general practitioners consulting in their surgeries

    (1976)
  • R.F. Bales

    Interaction process analysis: a method for the study of small groups

    (1950)
  • D. Beeson

    Nuance, complexity, and context: qualitative methods in genetic counseling research

    J Genet Couns

    (1997)
  • M.M. Hennink et al.

    Qualitative research methods

    (2011)
  • A. Kuper et al.

    An introduction to reading and appraising qualitative research

    Brit Med J

    (2008)
  • P. Liamputtong et al.

    Qualitative research methods

    (2005)
  • S. Sarangi et al.

    Talk, work and institutional order: discourse in medical, mediation, and management settings

    (1999)
  • S. Kessler et al.

    Psychological aspects of genetic counseling. II: Quantitative analysis of a transcript of a genetic counseling session

    Am J Med Genet

    (1982)
  • S. Sarangi

    The language of likelihood in genetic-counseling discourse

    J Lang Soc Psychol

    (2002)
  • S. Sarangi et al.

    Zones of expertise and the management of uncertainty in genetics risk communication

    Res Lang Soc Interact

    (2002)
  • D. Moher et al.

    Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement

    Brit Med J

    (2009)
  • J. Popay et al.
    (2006)
  • L.M. Kmet et al.

    Standard quality assessment criteria for evaluating primary research papers from a variety of fields

    (2004)
  • V. Adelswärd et al.

    Risk discourse: recontextualization of numerical values in clinical practice

    Text

    (1998)
  • V. Adelswärd et al.

    The messenger's dilemmas-giving and getting information in genealogical mapping for hereditary cancer

    Health Risk Soc

    (2003)
  • J.L. Benkendorf et al.

    Does indirect speech promote nondirective genetic counseling? Results of a sociolinguistic investigation

    Am J Med Genet

    (2001)
  • P.N. Butow et al.

    Analyzing the process and content of genetic counseling in familial breast cancer consultations

    J Genet Couns

    (2004)
  • Cited by (38)

    • Communicating polygenic risk scores in the familial breast cancer clinic

      2021, Patient Education and Counseling
      Citation Excerpt :

      All consultations were primarily provider-driven and focused on information giving. These findings are consistent with early studies of BRCA1/2 genetic testing, which reported GHPs frequently failed to identify what patients wanted from consultations and provided more biomedical than psychosocial information [32]. It is likely that our finding that GHPs focused on biomedical information is, in part, a reflection of GHP confidence and comfort communicating new genetic risk information.

    • The role of genetic counseling in the infertile patient

      2020, Human Reproductive Genetics: Emerging Technologies and Clinical Applications
    • Effective communication in the era of precision medicine: A pilot intervention with low health literacy patients to improve genetic counseling communication

      2019, European Journal of Medical Genetics
      Citation Excerpt :

      Attending to psychosocial issues is a key component of genetic counseling (Biesecker et al., 2014; Trepanier et al., 2004; Weil, 2003; Eijzenga et al., 2014), and previous research has found emotional connections to be a more important component of counseling than information alone (Edwards et al., 2008). Nevertheless, numerous studies have found that information and provider speech dominate GC sessions (Edwards et al., 2008; Paul et al., 2015). While GCs’ commitment to, and excitement about, the evolving science of genetics is necessary to do their jobs well, it must be balanced with the recognition that their patients may not share their perspective.

    • Exome sequencing disclosures in pediatric cancer care: Patterns of communication among oncologists, genetic counselors, and parents

      2019, Patient Education and Counseling
      Citation Excerpt :

      Clinicians, in turn, provide information about disease and treatment, attempt to assuage emotional distress, and (ideally) facilitate patient involvement in the consultation [6]. In genetic consultations, clinician talk can dominate [7,8] as foreign genetic concepts, and their clinical and psychosocial implications for patients and families, must be conveyed. Information giving must be balanced with genetic counseling and psychosocial support.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text