Information exchange between patients with Lynch syndrome and their genetic and non-genetic health professionals: whose responsibility?
- PMID: 30209752
- PMCID: PMC6435774
- DOI: 10.1007/s12687-018-0381-5
Information exchange between patients with Lynch syndrome and their genetic and non-genetic health professionals: whose responsibility?
Abstract
Individuals at high risk for Lynch syndrome (LS) should be offered genetic counselling, since preventive options are available. However, uptake of genetic services and follow-up care are currently suboptimal, possibly caused by inadequate exchange of information. Therefore, this qualitative study aims to gain insight in the process of information exchange between patients diagnosed with LS and their non-genetic (i.e., general practitioner, gastroenterologist, gynaecologist) and genetic (i.e., clinical geneticist or genetic counsellor) health professionals concerning referral for genetic counselling and follow-up care. Participants comprised 13 patients diagnosed with LS (8 index patients and 5 of their affected relatives) and 24 health professionals (6 general practitioners, 8 gastroenterologists, 6 gynaecologists and 4 genetic health professionals). Analysis of the interview transcripts was performed in parallel and again after the interviews, following guidelines for qualitative research and using MAXQDA software. The main finding is that patients may 'get lost' between health professionals who lack a clear overview of their own and each other's role and responsibilities in the referral and follow-up care for patients with possible LS. Education of non-genetic health professionals and optimisation of communication between health professionals might help to enable more timely diagnosis of LS and allow patients to address their doubts and questions to the most appropriate healthcare professional.
Keywords: Communication; Gastroenterology; Genetic testing; Referral, hereditary colorectal neoplasms.
Conflict of interest statement
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethical approval
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Similar articles
-
Promoting and supporting self-management for adults living in the community with physical chronic illness: A systematic review of the effectiveness and meaningfulness of the patient-practitioner encounter.JBI Libr Syst Rev. 2009;7(13):492-582. doi: 10.11124/01938924-200907130-00001. JBI Libr Syst Rev. 2009. PMID: 27819974
-
Improving the referral process for familial breast cancer genetic counselling: findings of three randomised controlled trials of two interventions.Health Technol Assess. 2005 Feb;9(3):iii-iv, 1-126. doi: 10.3310/hta9030. Health Technol Assess. 2005. PMID: 15694064 Review.
-
Exploring clinicians' attitudes about using aspirin for risk reduction in people with Lynch Syndrome with no personal diagnosis of colorectal cancer.Fam Cancer. 2017 Jan;16(1):99-109. doi: 10.1007/s10689-016-9933-1. Fam Cancer. 2017. PMID: 27677266
-
The Current Practice of Lynch Syndrome Diagnosis and Management in Italy: A Qualitative Assessment.Public Health Genomics. 2019;22(5-6):189-207. doi: 10.1159/000504305. Epub 2019 Dec 5. Public Health Genomics. 2019. PMID: 31805557
-
Evaluation of prenatally diagnosed structural congenital anomalies.J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2009 Sep;31(9):875-881. doi: 10.1016/S1701-2163(16)34307-9. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2009. PMID: 19941713 Review. English, French.
Cited by
-
Systemic Barriers to Risk-Reducing Interventions for Hereditary Cancer Syndromes: Implications for Health Care Inequities.JCO Precis Oncol. 2021 Nov 3;5:PO.21.00233. doi: 10.1200/PO.21.00233. eCollection 2021. JCO Precis Oncol. 2021. PMID: 34778694 Free PMC article. Review. No abstract available.
-
Stakeholders' experiences and perspectives of reproductive genetic carrier screening in gamete donation: a scoping review.Hum Reprod. 2025 Sep 1;40(9):1689-1698. doi: 10.1093/humrep/deaf128. Hum Reprod. 2025. PMID: 40611508 Free PMC article.
-
Readiness of Primary Healthcare Physicians for Providing Genetic Services.Cureus. 2025 Jan 26;17(1):e78031. doi: 10.7759/cureus.78031. eCollection 2025 Jan. Cureus. 2025. PMID: 40013188 Free PMC article.
-
A practical method for integrating community priorities in planning and implementing cancer control programs.Cancer Causes Control. 2023 Dec;34(Suppl 1):113-123. doi: 10.1007/s10552-023-01688-w. Epub 2023 Apr 18. Cancer Causes Control. 2023. PMID: 37069456 Free PMC article.
-
General practitioners' (GPs) experience, attitudes and needs on clinical genetic services: a systematic review.Fam Med Community Health. 2022 Nov;10(4):e001515. doi: 10.1136/fmch-2021-001515. Fam Med Community Health. 2022. PMID: 36450397 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3:77–101. doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa. - DOI
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources