Roughly one in ten cancers traces back to an inherited genetic variant, yet knowing that rarely translates into action for those who could benefit most. In Michigan, researchers at the Rogel Cancer Center tested whether a phone coach or a self-guided digital tool could nudge eligible adults toward genetic testing, and found the nudge real but modest. The result speaks less to a failure of will than to the many quiet obstacles that lie between a person's decision and an appointment, and it suggests that closing the gap will require patience, better pathways, and approaches fitted to how differe
Phone Coaching and Digital Tools Lift Cancer Genetic Testing Uptake in Michigan Trial
Even with knowledge, there's still a gap in getting people to the appointment
Mark
Ten percent tested after a year. Is that a failure or a result?
Mimi
Both, a little. The authors say they hoped for more, but the interventions did beat usual care on testing and on intent to test.
Luke
Worth being careful there. The source says those groups were more likely to complete testing or report intent. It doesn't give us the size of the gap between arms, so I can't tell you how big the benefit was.
Mark
And the 5% and 10%, are those for the coaching groups?
Luke
No, those are overall figures across all participants. They're not broken out by arm in what we have.
Mimi
What stands out to me is Austin's point that knowledge isn't the whole problem. Someone can decide they want testing and still never book the appointment.
Mark
So the tools worked on the knowing, but not the doing?
Luke
That's her interpretation, and it's plausible, but the trial's reported numbers don't isolate that. It's the researchers' reading of why uptake stayed low.
Mimi
She also suspects a year isn't long enough. People may take time to decide and arrange follow-up.
Luke
Which is a suspicion, not a finding. Longer follow-up would be needed to know.
Mark
What's the takeaway, then?
Mimi
That one size won't fit. Some people want a video, others want a phone call, and the system around them has to make the next step easy.
Der Puls
- Only one in fifteen eligible cancer patients completes genetic testing, leaving a wide gap between who should be tested and who is.
- A randomized trial of 793 Michigan adults pitted phone coaching and a digital tool against usual care, and both lifted testing intent and completion.
- Yet completion stayed stubbornly low, with just 5% tested at six months and 10% at one year, frustrating researchers who had hoped for more.
- Access, referral hurdles, cost, privacy worries and fear now look like the real blockers, not simply a lack of knowledge.
- Investigators plan longer follow-up and tailored outreach, since some people want online material while others want a live conversation.
Roughly one in ten cancers traces back to an inherited genetic variant, yet knowing that rarely translates into action for those who could benefit most. In Michigan, researchers at the Rogel Cancer Center tested whether a phone coach or a self-guided digital tool could nudge eligible adults toward genetic testing, and found the nudge real but modest. The result speaks less to a failure of will than to the many quiet obstacles that lie between a person's decision and an appointment, and it suggests that closing the gap will require patience, better pathways, and approaches fitted to how different people actually prefer to learn.
Roughly one in ten cancers is linked to an inherited genetic variant, but among cancer patients who qualify for genetic testing, only about one in fifteen follows through. A team at the University of Michigan Rogel Cancer Center set out to see whether better information and gentle encouragement could narrow that gap.
The Michigan Genetic Hereditary Testing trial, known as MiGHT, enrolled 793 adults who met clinical criteria for genetic evaluation based on their own or their family's cancer history. Participants were randomly assigned to phone-based health coaching, a self-directed digital tool, or usual care. Both interventions blended genetics education with motivational interviewing.
The movement was real but modest. Across the group, 5% had completed testing at six months and 10% at one year. Those who received either intervention were more likely than the usual-care group to get tested or to say they intended to. Lead author Sarah Austin said the team had hoped for more, and she read the gap as a sign of how many steps sit between wanting a test and getting one: an appointment must be made, and a doctor must be asked. Senior author Elena Stoffel named access, cost, privacy concerns and fear as the obstacles, and called for scalable solutions.
The researchers followed people for only a year, and Austin suspects that may be too short to capture the full effect. The team also concluded that outreach should be tailored, since some people respond to online information or videos while others prefer a one-on-one call.
The stakes are concrete. A positive result can open doors to closer screening, preventive treatment, or better-guided care for those already diagnosed. MiGHT is one of several National Cancer Institute-funded programs, and investigators across them are now meeting to share findings. As Austin put it, the work is not only about knowledge but also about making testing easier to reach.
Roughly one in ten cancers is tied to an inherited genetic variant. Yet among cancer patients who qualify for genetic testing, as few as one in fifteen actually complete it. A new trial from the University of Michigan Rogel Cancer Center set out to learn whether better information and a bit of encouragement could close some of that gap.
The study, called the Michigan Genetic Hereditary Testing trial, or MiGHT, enrolled 793 adults from across Michigan. All of them met clinical criteria for a genetic evaluation, based on their own history of cancer or their family's. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three arms: phone-based health coaching, a self-directed digital tool, or usual care. Both interventions combined education about genetics with concepts from motivational interviewing.
The results, published in JAMA Network Open, show movement, though not a dramatic amount. Across all participants, 5% had completed genetic testing at six months and 10% at one year. People who received either intervention were more likely than those in usual care to complete testing or to say they intended to get it.
Sarah Austin, the lead author and a Clinical Assistant Professor of Genetic Medicine at Michigan Medicine, was candid about the size of the effect. The team was able to move the needle, she said, and some participants did complete testing. But they had hoped for higher uptake. In her reading, that points to how many barriers stand between a person and genetic services: even someone who has the knowledge and decides testing is worthwhile still has to make an appointment or raise it with a doctor.
Elena Stoffel, the senior author, directs the Cancer Genetics Clinic at the Rogel Cancer Center and is a Clinical Professor of Internal Medicine/Gastroenterology. She listed the obstacles as access, cost, privacy concerns and fear, and said scalable strategies are needed to address them. The grant behind the trial was co-led by Jennifer J. Griggs and Ken Resnicow.
The researchers followed participants only at six months and a year. Austin suspects that window may be too short to capture the real effect, since people may need more time to decide and then arrange clinical follow-up. The team also concluded that future approaches should be tailored to the individual: some people respond to information online or in videos, while others prefer a one-on-one phone call with a coach.
What testing can offer is concrete. People who test positive for a variant linked to higher cancer risk may qualify for specialized screening or surveillance meant to catch cancer sooner, or for treatments that prevent it. For those already diagnosed, results can help guide treatment choices.
MiGHT was one of several program grants from the National Cancer Institute aimed at improving how people with genetic susceptibility to cancer are identified and cared for. As results come in from the other projects, a shared theme is emerging: reaching everyone eligible will take more work. Investigators across the projects are meeting to discuss findings, pool what they know and shape future plans. As Austin put it, the task is not only to bridge the knowledge gap but also to address access, referral pathways and other barriers so that getting tested becomes easier.
Bemerkenswerte Zitate
We had hoped uptake of testing would be higher, but this highlights that there are a lot of barriers to accessing genetics and cancer prevention services.— Sarah Austin, lead study author, Michigan Medicine
Scalable strategies are needed to overcome these barriers, which include access, cost, privacy concerns and fear.— Elena Stoffel, senior study author, Rogel Cancer Center
Möchten Sie die ganze Geschichte?
Das Original lesen bei News-Medical ↗
Health & Medicine