Advertisement

Journal of Genetic Counseling

, Volume 23, Issue 4, pp 445–451 | Cite as

Teaching Genomic Counseling: Preparing the Genetic Counseling Workforce for the Genomic Era

  • Gillian W. Hooker
  • Kelly E. Ormond
  • Kevin Sweet
  • Barbara B. Biesecker
Next Generation Genetic Counseling

Abstract

Genetic counselors have a long-standing history of working on the clinical forefront of implementing new genetic technology. Genomic sequencing is no exception. The rapid advancement of genomic sequencing technologies, including but not limited to next generation sequencing approaches, across all subspecialties of genetic counseling mandates attention to genetic counselor training at both the graduate and continuing education levels. The current era provides a tremendous opportunity for counselors to become actively involved in making genomics more accessible, engaging the population in decisions to undergo sequencing and effectively translating genomic information to promote health and well-being. In this commentary, we explore reasons why genomic sequencing warrants particular consideration and put forward strategies for training program curricula and continuing education programs to meet this need.

Keywords

Genomics Next generation sequencing Genetic counseling training Continuing education 

Notes

Conflict of interest

Gillian W. Hooker, Kelly E. Ormond, Kevin Sweet and Barbara B. Biesecker declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Berg, J. S., Khoury, M. J., & Evans, J. P. (2011). Deploying whole genome sequencing in clinical practice and public health: meeting the challenge one bin at a time. Genetics in Medicine: Official Journal of the American College of Medical Genetics, 13(6), 499–504. doi: 10.1097/GIM.0b013e318220aaba.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bernhardt, B. A., Biesecker, B. B., & Mastromarino, C. L. (2000). Goals, benefits, and outcomes of genetic counseling: client and genetic counselor assessment. American Journal of Medical Genetics, 94(3), 189–197.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bloss, C. S., Schork, N. J., & Topol, E. J. (2011). Effect of direct-to-consumer genomewide profiling to assess disease risk. The New England Journal of Medicine, 364(6), 524–534. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1011893.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boguski, M. S., Boguski, R. M., & Berman, M. R. (2013). Personal genotypes are teachable moments. Genome Medicine, 5(3), 22. doi: 10.1186/gm426.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Callier, S. L. (2012). Swabbing students: should universities be allowed to facilitate educational DNA testing? The American Journal of Bioethics: AJOB, 12(4), 32–40. doi: 10.1080/15265161.2012.656803.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Claassen, L., Henneman, L., De Vet, R., Knol, D., Marteau, T., & Timmermans, D. (2010). Fatalistic responses to different types of genetic risk information: exploring the role of self-malleability. Psychology & Health, 25(2), 183–196. doi: 10.1080/08870440802460434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Collins, R. E., Wright, A. J., & Marteau, T. M. (2011). Impact of communicating personalized genetic risk information on perceived control over the risk: a systematic review. Genetics in Medicine: Official Journal of the American College of Medical Genetics, 13(4), 273–277. doi: 10.1097/GIM.0b013e3181f710ca.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dorschner, M. O., Amendola, L. M., Turner, E. H., Robertson, P. D., Shirts, B. H., Gallego, C. J., et al. (2013). Actionable, pathogenic incidental findings in 1,000 participants’ exomes. American Journal of Human Genetics, 93(4), 631–640. doi: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2013.08.006.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Elias, S., & Annas, G. J. (1994). Generic consent for genetic screening. The New England Journal of Medicine, 330(22), 1611–1613. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199406023302213.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Facio, F. M., Brooks, S., Loewenstein, J., Green, S., Biesecker, L. G., & Biesecker, B. B. (2011). Motivators for participation in a whole-genome sequencing study: implications for translational genomics research. European Journal of Human Genetics: EJHG, 19(12), 1213–1217. doi: 10.1038/ejhg.2011.123.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Glanz, K., Rimer, B. K., & Viswanath, K. (2008). Health behavior and health education: Theory, research, and practice (4th ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  12. Green, R. C., Berg, J. S., Grody, W. W., Kalia, S. S., Korf, B. R., Martin, C. L., et al. (2013). ACMG Recommendations for reporting of incidental findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing (pp. 29): American College of Medical Genetics.Google Scholar
  13. Hadley, D. W., Ashida, S., Jenkins, J. F., Calzone, K. A., Kirsch, I. R., & Koehly, L. M. (2011). Colonoscopy use following mutation detection in Lynch syndrome: exploring a role for cancer screening in adaptation. Clinical Genetics, 79(4), 321–328. doi: 10.1111/j.1399-0004.2010.01622.x.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hamilton, J. G., Hutson, S. P., Moser, R. P., Kobrin, S. C., Frohnmayer, A. E., Alter, B. P., et al. (2013). Sources of uncertainty and their association with medical decision making: exploring mechanisms in Fanconi Anemia. Annals of Behavioral Medicine: A Publication of the Society of Behavioral Medicine. doi: 10.1007/s12160-013-9507-5.Google Scholar
  15. Han, P. K., Klein, W. M., & Arora, N. K. (2011). Varieties of uncertainty in health care: a conceptual taxonomy. Medical Decision Making: An International Journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making, 31(6), 828–838. doi: 10.1177/0272989X11393976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jaffe, A., Wojcik, G., Chu, A., Golozar, A., Maroo, A., Duggal, P., et al. (2011). Identification of functional genetic variation in exome sequence analysis. BMC Proceedings, 5(Suppl 9), S13. doi: 10.1186/1753-6561-5-S9-S13.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. James, K. M., Cowl, C. T., Tilburt, J. C., Sinicrope, P. S., Robinson, M. E., Frimannsdottir, K. R., et al. (2011). Impact of direct-to-consumer predictive genomic testing on risk perception and worry among patients receiving routine care in a preventive health clinic. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 86(10), 933–940. doi: 10.4065/mcp.2011.0190.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Johnston, J. J., & Biesecker, L. G. (2013). Databases of genomic variation and phenotypes: existing resources and future needs. Human Molecular Genetics, 22(R1), R27–R31. doi: 10.1093/hmg/ddt384.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Johnston, J. J., Rubinstein, W. S., Facio, F. M., Ng, D., Singh, L. N., Teer, J. K., et al. (2012). Secondary variants in individuals undergoing exome sequencing: screening of 572 individuals identifies high-penetrance mutations in cancer-susceptibility genes. American Journal of Human Genetics, 91(1), 97–108. doi: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2012.05.021.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kaphingst, K. A., McBride, C. M., Wade, C., Alford, S. H., Reid, R., Larson, E., et al. (2012). Patients’ understanding of and responses to multiplex genetic susceptibility test results. Genetic in Medicine, 14(7), 681–687. doi: 10.1038/gim.2012.22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Knowles, M. S. (1980). What is andragogy? Chicago: Illinois, Association Press.Google Scholar
  22. McBride, C. M., Bowen, D., Brody, L. C., Condit, C. M., Croyle, R. T., Gwinn, M., et al. (2010a). Future health applications of genomics: priorities for communication, behavioral, and social sciences research. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 38(5), 556–565. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2010.01.027.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McBride, C. M., Koehly, L. M., Sanderson, S. C., & Kaphingst, K. A. (2010b). The behavioral response to personalized genetic information: will genetic risk profiles motivate individuals and families to choose more healthful behaviors? Annual Review of Public Health, 31, 89–103. doi: 10.1146/annurev.publhealth.012809.103532.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. McBride, C. M., Wade, C. H., & Kaphingst, K. A. (2010c). Consumers’ views of direct-to-consumer genetic information. Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics, 11, 427–446. doi: 10.1146/annurev-genom-082509-141604.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ng, S. B., Buckingham, K. J., Lee, C., Bigham, A. W., Tabor, H. K., Dent, K. M., et al. (2010a). Exome sequencing identifies the cause of a mendelian disorder. Nature Genetics, 42(1), 30–35. doi: 10.1038/ng.499.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ng, S. B., Nickerson, D. A., Bamshad, M. J., & Shendure, J. (2010b). Massively parallel sequencing and rare disease. Human Molecular Genetics, 19(R2), R119–R124. doi: 10.1093/hmg/ddq390.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. OHRP. (1998, 9/30/98). §46.116 - Informed consent checklist - basic and additional elements http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/policy/consentckls.html Retrieved 6/4/13, 2013.
  28. Platt, J., Bollinger, J., Dvoskin, R., Kardia, S. L., & Kaufman, D. (2013). Public preferences regarding informed consent models for participation in population-based genomic research. Genetics in Medicine: Official Journal of the American College of Medical Genetics. doi: 10.1038/gim.2013.59.Google Scholar
  29. Profato, J. (2011). Assessing the integration of genomic medicine into genetic counseling training programs. MS Masters Thesis Stanford University Palo Alto, CA.Google Scholar
  30. Rehm, H. L., Bale, S. J., Bayrak-Toydemir, P., Berg, J. S., Brown, K. K., Deignan, J. L., et al. (2013). ACMG clinical laboratory standards for next-generation sequencing. Genetics in Medicine: Official Journal of the American College of Medical Genetics, 15(9), 733–747. doi: 10.1038/gim.2013.92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Roter, D., Ellington, L., Erby, L. H., Larson, S., & Dudley, W. (2006). The Genetic Counseling Video Project (GCVP): models of practice. American Journal of Medical Genetics, Part C, Seminars in Medical Genetics, 142C(4), 209–220. doi: 10.1002/ajmg.c.30094.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Salari, K., Karczewski, K. J., Hudgins, L., & Ormond, K. E. (2013). Evidence that personal genome testing enhances student learning in a course on genomics and personalized medicine. PloS One, 8(7), e68853. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0068853.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Salari, K., Pizzo, P. A., & Prober, C. G. (2011). Commentary: to genotype or not to genotype? Addressing the debate through the development of a genomics and personalized medicine curriculum. Academic Medicine: Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, 86(8), 925–927. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3182223acf.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schaffer, A. A. (2013). Digenic inheritance in medical genetics. Journal of Medical Genetics, 50(10), 641–652. doi: 10.1136/jmedgenet-2013-101713.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schwartz, M. D., Isaacs, C., Graves, K. D., Poggi, E., Peshkin, B. N., Gell, C., et al. (2012). Long-term outcomes of BRCA1/BRCA2 testing: risk reduction and surveillance. Cancer, 118(2), 510–517. doi: 10.1002/cncr.26294.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sloan, J. L., Johnston, J. J., Manoli, I., Chandler, R. J., Krause, C., Carrillo-Carrasco, N., et al. (2011). Exome sequencing identifies ACSF3 as a cause of combined malonic and methylmalonic aciduria. Nature Genetics, 43(9), 883–886. doi: 10.1038/ng.908.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Stern, A. (2012). Telling genes: The story of genetic counseling in America. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Tester, D. J., Will, M. L., Haglund, C. M., & Ackerman, M. J. (2005). Compendium of cardiac channel mutations in 541 consecutive unrelated patients referred for long QT syndrome genetic testing. Heart Rhythm: the Official Journal of the Heart Rhythm Society, 2(5), 507–517. doi: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2005.01.020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Vernez, S., Salari, K., Ormond, K. E., & Lee, S. S. (2013). Personal genome testing in medical education: student experiences with genotyping in the classroom. Genome Medicine, 5(3), 24. doi: 10.1186/gm428.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Walt, D. R., Kuhlik, A., Epstein, S. K., Demmer, L. A., Knight, M., Chelmow, D., et al. (2011). Lessons learned from the introduction of personalized genotyping into a medical school curriculum. Genetics in Medicine: Official Journal of the American College of Medical Genetics, 13(1), 63–66. doi: 10.1097/GIM.0b013e3181f872ac.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Watkins, H., Ashrafian, H., & Redwood, C. (2011). Inherited cardiomyopathies. The New England Journal of Medicine, 364(17), 1643–1656. doi: 10.1056/NEJMra0902923.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Westbrook, M. J., Wright, M. F., Van Driest, S. L., McGregor, T. L., Denny, J. C., Zuvich, R. L., et al. (2013). Mapping the incidentalome: estimating incidental findings generated through clinical pharmacogenomics testing. Genetics in Medicine, 15(5), 325–331.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wiens, M. E., Wilson, B. J., Honeywell, C., & Etchegary, H. (2013). A family genetic risk communication framework: guiding tool development in genetics health services. Journal of Community Genetics, 4(2), 233–242. doi: 10.1007/s12687-012-0134-9.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wolf, S. M., Annas, G. J., & Elias, S. (2013). Point-counterpoint. Patient autonomy and incidental findings in clinical genomics. Science, 340(6136), 1049–1050. doi: 10.1126/science.1239119.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wolf, S. M., Crock, B. N., Van Ness, B., Lawrenz, F., Kahn, J. P., Beskow, L. M., et al. (2012). Managing incidental findings and research results in genomic research involving biobanks and archived data sets. Genetics in Medicine: Official Journal of the American College of Medical Genetics, 14(4), 361–384. doi: 10.1038/gim.2012.23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Yu, B. (2009). Role of in silico tools in gene discovery. Molecular Biotechnology, 41(3), 296–306. doi: 10.1007/s12033-008-9134-8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York (Outside the USA) 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gillian W. Hooker
    • 1
    • 4
  • Kelly E. Ormond
    • 2
  • Kevin Sweet
    • 3
  • Barbara B. Biesecker
    • 1
  1. 1.Social and Behavioral Research Branch, Genetic Counseling Training Program, The Johns Hopkins School of Public HealthNational Human Genome Research Institute, National Institutes of HealthBethesdaUSA
  2. 2.Department of Genetics, MS Human Genetics and Genetic Counseling Program and Stanford Center for Biomedical EthicsStanford UniversityStanfordUSA
  3. 3.Division of Human GeneticsOhio State University Wexner Medical CenterColumbusUSA
  4. 4.Social and Behavioral Research BranchNational Human Genome Research InstituteBethesdaUSA

Personalised recommendations