This review aimed to develop a framework to understand the process of information management in families with inherited conditions. Electronic databases were searched for relevant peer-reviewed articles. Articles were included if they were original research on families affected by any confirmed inherited condition, described how a family accesses, interprets, conveys, and/or uses information about the disease, included the recruitment of more than one family member, and used family as the unit of analysis. Data were analyzed through directed content analysis. Thirty-four articles from 27 studies were analyzed. We propose a framework for family information management consisting of the following domains: contextual influences, family information management behaviors, and family information management outcomes. This proposed framework expands the understanding of how families manage their genetic information in making health care decisions for their affected and at-risk relatives.
AbadP. J. B. (2012). Explanatory models of illness may Facilitate cultural competence in genetic counseling. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 21(4), 612–614. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-012-9487-9
2.
AbadP. J. B.AnonuevoC. A.Daack-HirschS.AbadL. R.PadillaC. D.LaurinoM. Y. (2017). Communication about congenital adrenal hyperplasia: Perspective of Filipino families. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 26(4), 763–775. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-016-0043-x
3.
AbadP. J. B.TanM. L.BaluyotM. M.VillaA. Q.TalapianG. L.ReyesM. E.SuarezR. C.SurA. L.AldemitaV. D.PadillaC. D.LaurinoM. Y. (2014). Cultural beliefs on disease causation in the Philippines: Challenge and implications in genetic counseling. Journal of Community Genetics, 5(4), 399–407. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12687-014-0193-1
4.
AblonJ. (2000). Parents’ responses to their child’s diagnosis of neurofibromatosis 1. American Journal of Medical Genetics, 93(2), 136–142. https://doi.org/10.1002/1096-8628(20000717)93:2<136::aid-ajmg11>3.0.co;2-l
5.
American Society of Human Genetics. (1998). Professional disclosure of familial genetic information. American Journal of Human Genetics, 62(2), 474–483.
6.
AshidaS.HadleyD. W.GoergenA. F.SkapinskyK. F.DevlinH. C.KoehlyL. M. (2011). The importance of older family members in providing social resources and promoting cancer screening in families with a hereditary cancer syndrome. Gerontologist, 51(6), 833–842. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnr049
7.
BryonM. (2020). Breaking the diagnosis of cystic fibrosis to parents: A process not a one-off event. Paediatric Respiratory Reviews, 35, 103–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prrv.2020.04.006
8.
CaleshuC.KasparianN. A.EdwardsK. S.YeatesL.SemsarianC.PerezM.AshleyE.TurnerC. J.KnowlesJ. W.InglesJ. (2016). Interdisciplinary psychosocial care for families with inherited cardiovascular diseases. Trends in Cardiovascular Medicine, 26(7), 647–653. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tcm.2016.04.010
9.
Campbell-SalomeG.BarbourJ. B. (2022). Managing uncertainty for and with family: Communication strategies and motivations in familial uncertainty management for hereditary cancer. Qualitative Health Research, 32(8–9), 1230–1245. https://doi.org/10.1177/10497323221090191
10.
Campbell-SalomeG.RauscherE. A. (2020). Family storytelling about hereditary cancer: Framing shared understandings of risk. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 29(6), 936–948. https://doi.org/10.1002/jgc4.1218
11.
CarrieriD.FarrimondH.KellyS.TurnpennyP. (2016). Families dealing with the uncertainty of genetic disorders: The case of Neurofibromatosis Type 1. Sociology of Health & Illness, 38(5), 753–767. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.12401
12.
ChudleighJ.BuckinghamS.DignanJ.O’DriscollS.JohnsonK.ReesD.WyattH.MetcalfeA. (2016). Parents’ experiences of receiving the initial positive newborn screening (NBS) result for cystic fibrosis and sickle cell disease. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 25(6), 1215–1226. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-016-9959-4
13.
CollinsF. S.PatrinosA.JordanE.ChakravartiA.GestelandR.WaltersL.Members of the, D. O. E., & Groups, N. I. H. P. (1998). New goals for the U.S. Human Genome Project: 1998-2003. Science, 282(5389), 682–689. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.282.5389.682
14.
Daack-HirschS.GamboaH. (2010). Filipino explanatory models of cleft lip with or without cleft palate. The Cleft Palate Craniofacial Journal, 47(2), 122–133. https://doi.org/10.1597/08-139_1
15.
Daack-HirschS.ShahL. L.JonesK.RochaB.DoerrM.GabitzschE.MeeseT. (2020). All things considered, my risk for diabetes is medium: A risk personalization process of familial risk for type 2 diabetes. Health Expectations, 23(1), 169–181. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12986
16.
DancygerC.SmithJ. A.JacobsC.WallaceM.MichieS. (2010). Comparing family members motivations and attitudes towards genetic testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer: A qualitative analysis. European Journal of Human Genetics, 18(12), 1289–1295. https://doi.org/10.1038/ejhg.2010.114
17.
DancygerC.WisemanM.JacobsC.SmithJ. A.WallaceM.MichieS. (2011). Communicating BRCA1/2 genetic test results within the family: A qualitative analysis. Psychology & Health, 26(8), 1018–1035. https://doi.org/10.1080/08870446.2010.525640
18.
DattiloT. M.LipakK. G.ClarkO. E.GehredA.SampsonA.QuinnG.ZajoK.SutterM. E.Bowman-CurciM.GardnerM.GerhardtC. A.NahataL. (2021). Parent-child communication and reproductive considerations in families with genetic cancer predisposition syndromes: A systematic review. Journal of Adolescent & Young Adult Oncology, 10(1), 15–25. https://doi.org/10.1089/jayao.2020.0084
dos SantosM. C.PiresA. F.SoaresK.BarrosL. (2018). Family experience with osteogenesis imperfecta type 1: The most distressing situations. Disability and Rehabilitation, 40(19), 2281–2287. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2017.1334236
21.
ErsigA. L.Werner-LinA.HoskinsL.YoungJ.LoudJ. T.PetersJ.GreeneM. H. (2019). Legacies and relationships: Diverse social networks and BRCA1/2 risk management decisions and actions. Journal of Family Nursing, 25(1), 28–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/1074840718815844
22.
FeethamS. (2008). Distinguished contribution to family nursing research award (2007): Marilyn McCubbin, PhD, RN, FAAN. Journal of Family Nursing, 14(1), 3–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/1074840707312797
23.
FiallosK.OwczarzakJ.BodurthaJ.Beatriz MargaritS.ErbyL. (2021). Where culture meets genetics: Exploring Latina immigrants’ lay beliefs of disease inheritance. Social Science & Medicine, 271, 112179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.02.030
24.
ForrestK.SimpsonS. A.WilsonB. J.van TeijlingenE. R.McKeeL.HaitesN.MatthewsE. (2003). To tell or not to tell: Barriers and facilitators in family communication about genetic risk. Clinical Genetics, 64(4), 317–326. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1399-0004.2003.00142.x
25.
FosterM. W.MulvihillJ. J.SharpR. R. (2009). Evaluating the utility of personal genomic information. Genetics in Medicine, 11(8), 570–574. https://doi.org/10.1097/GIM.0b013e3181a2743e
26.
GaffC. L.ClarkeA. J.AtkinsonP.SivellS.ElwynG.IredaleR.ThorntonH.DundonJ.ShawC.EdwardsA. (2007). Process and outcome in communication of genetic information within families: A systematic review. European Journal of Human Genetics, 15(10), 999–1011. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ejhg.5201883
27.
GalloA. M.AngstD.KnaflK. A.HadleyE.SmithC. (2005). Parents sharing information with their children about genetic conditions. Journal of Pediatric Healthcare, 19(5), 267–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedhc.2005.05.008
28.
GalloA. M.KnaflK. A.AngstD. B. (2009). Information management in families who have a child with a genetic condition. Journal of Pediatric Nursing, 24(3), 194–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedn.2008.07.010
29.
GeelenE.Van HoyweghenI.DoevendansP. A.MarcelisC. L.HorstmanK. (2011a). Constructing “best interests””: Genetic testing of children in families with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A, 155(8), 1930–1938. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajmg.a.34107
30.
GeelenE.Van HoyweghenI.HorstmanK. (2011b). Making genetics not so important: Family work in dealing with familial hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. Social Science & Medicine, 72(11), 1752–1759. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.06.012
31.
GomesP.PietrabissaG.SilvaE. R.SilvaJ.MatosP. M.CostaM. E.BertuzziV.SilvaE.NevesM. C.SalesC. M. D. (2022). Family adjustment to hereditary cancer syndromes: A systematic review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(3), 1603. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19031603
32.
GregoryG.Das GuptaK.MeiserB.Barlow-StewartK.Geelan-SmallP.KaurR.Scheepers-JoyntM.McInernyS.TaylorS.AntillY.SalmonL.SmythC.YoungM. A.JamesP. A.YanesT. (2022). Polygenic risk in familial breast cancer: Changing the dynamics of communicating genetic risk. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 31(1), 120–129. https://doi.org/10.1002/jgc4.1458
33.
HallowellN.Ardern-JonesA.EelesR.FosterC.LucassenA.MoynihanC.WatsonM. (2005). Communication about genetic testing in families of male BRCA1/2 carriers and non-carriers: Patterns, priorities and problems. Clinical Genetics, 67(6), 492–502. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-0004.2005.00443.x
34.
HennemanL.KooijL.BoumanK.ten KateL. P. (2002). Personal experiences of cystic fibrosis (CF) carrier couples prospectively identified in CF families. American Journal of Medical Genetics, 110(4), 324–331. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajmg.10464
35.
HoltK. (2006). What do we tell the children? Contrasting the disclosure choices of two HD families regarding risk status and predictive genetic testing. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 15(4), 253–265. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-006-9021-z
36.
HsiehH. F.ShannonS. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687
37.
JanvierA.FarlowB.BarringtonK. J.BourqueC. J.BrazgT.WilfondB. (2020). Building trust and improving communication with parents of children with Trisomy 13 and 18: A mixed-methods study. Palliative Medicine, 34(3), 262–271. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269216319860662
38.
Kengne KamgaK.De VriesJ.NguefackS.MunungN. S.WonkamA. (2021). Explanatory models for the cause of Fragile X Syndrome in rural Cameroon. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 30(6), 1727–1736. https://doi.org/10.1002/jgc4.1440
39.
KmetL.LeeR. C.CookL. S. (2004). Standard quality assessment criteria for evaluating primary research papers from a variety of fields. Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research.
40.
KnaflK. A.DeatrickJ. A. (2003). Further refinement of the family management style framework. Journal of Family Nursing, 9(3), 232–256. https://doi.org/10.1177/1074840703255435
41.
KnaflK. A.DeatrickJ. A.HavillN. L. (2012). Continued development of the family management style framework. Journal of Family Nursing, 18(1), 11–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/1074840711427294
42.
KoehlyL. M. (2017). It’s interpersonal: Family relationships, genetic risk, and caregiving. Gerontologist, 57(1), 32–39. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnw103
43.
KoehlyL. M.PetersJ. A.KenenR.HoskinsL. M.ErsigA. L.KuhnN. R.LoudJ. T.GreeneM. H. (2009). Characteristics of health information gatherers, disseminators, and blockers within families at risk of hereditary cancer: Implications for family health communication interventions. American Journal of Public Health, 99(12), 2203–2209. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.2008.154096
44.
KoehlyL. M.PetersJ. A.KuhnN.HoskinsL.LetochaA.KenenR.LoudJ.GreeneM. H. (2008). Sisters in hereditary breast and ovarian cancer families: Communal coping, social integration, and psychological well-being. Psycho-Oncology, 17(8), 812–821. https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.1373
45.
KoehlyL. M.PetersonS. K.WattsB. G.KempfK. K.VernonS. W.GritzE. R. (2003). A social network analysis of communication about hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer genetic testing and family functioning. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers, and Prevention, 12(4), 304–313.
MazaheriM. M.Rae-SeebachR. D.PrestonH. E.SchmidtM.Kountz-EdwardsS.FieldN.CassidyS.PackmanW. (2013). The impact of Prader—Willi syndrome on the family’s quality of life and caregiving, and the unaffected siblings’ psychosocial adjustment. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 57(9), 861–873. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2788.2012.01634.x
48.
MendesÁ.MetcalfeA.PanequeM.SousaL.ClarkeA. J.SequeirosJ. (2018). Communication of information about genetic risks: Putting families at the center. Family Process, 57(3), 836–846. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12306
49.
MetcalfeA.CoadJ.PlumridgeG. M.GillP.FarndonP. (2008). Family communication between children and their parents about inherited genetic conditions: A meta-synthesis of the research. European Journal of Human Genetics, 16(10), 1193–1200. https://doi.org/10.1038/ejhg.2008.84
50.
MetcalfeA.PlumridgeG.CoadJ.ShanksA.GillP. (2011). Parents’ and children’s communication about genetic risk: A qualitative study, learning from families’ experiences. European Journal of Human Genetics, 19(6), 640–646. https://doi.org/10.1038/ejhg.2010.258
MillerD. T.LeeK.Abul-HusnN. S.AmendolaL. M.BrothersK.ChungW. K.GollobM. H.GordonA. S.HarrisonS. M.HershbergerR. E.KleinT. E.RichardsC. S.StewartD. R.MartinC. L. (2023). ACMG SF v3.2 list for reporting of secondary findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing: A policy statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG). Genetics in Medicine, 25(8), 100866. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gim.2023.100866
53.
OlsonD. H.WaldvogelL.SchlieffM. (2019). Circumplex model of marital and family systems: An update. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 11(2), 199–211. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12331
54.
OrmondroydE.MoynihanC.Ardern-JonesA.EelesR.FosterC.DavollsS.WatsonM. (2008). Communicating genetics research results to families: Problems arising when the patient participant is deceased. Psycho-Oncology, 17(8), 804–811. https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.1356
55.
OrmondroydE.MoynihanC.WatsonM.FosterC.DavollsS.Ardern-JonesA.EelesR. (2007). Disclosure of genetics research results after the death of the patient participant: A qualitative study of the impact on relatives. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 16(4), 527–538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-007-9088-1
56.
PageM. J.McKenzieJ. E.BossuytP. M.BoutronI.HoffmannT. C.MulrowC. D.ShamseerL.TetzlaffJ. M.AklE. A.BrennanS. E.ChouR.GlanvilleJ.GrimshawJ. M.HróbjartssonA.LaluM. M.LiT.LoderE. W.Mayo-WilsonE.McDonaldS.McGuinnessL. A.MoherD. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, 71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
57.
PajariH.SinkkonenJ. (2000). Psychosocial impact of an X-linked hereditary disease: A study of Alport syndrome patients and family members. Child: Care, Health and Development, 26(3), 239–250. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2214.2000.00140.x
58.
PalmquistA. E. L.KoehlyL. M.PetersonS. K.ShegogM.VernonS. W.GritzE. R. (2010). “The Cancer Bond”: Exploring the formation of cancer risk perception in families with Lynch Syndrome. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 19(5), 473–486. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-010-9299-8
59.
PantaleaoA.YoungJ. L.EpsteinN. B.CarlsonM.BremerR. C.KhinchaP. P.PetersJ. A.GreeneM. H.RoyK.AchatzM. I.SavageS. A.Werner-LinA. (2020). Family health leaders: Lessons on living with Li–Fraumeni syndrome across generations. Family Process, 59(4), 1648–1663. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12497
60.
PetersonS. K.WattsB. G.KoehlyL. M.VernonS. W.BaileW. F.KohlmannW. K.GritzE. R. (2003). How families communicate about HNPCC genetic testing: Findings from a qualitative study. American Journal of Medical Genetics—Seminars in Medical Genetics, 119C(1), 78–86. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajmg.c.10010
61.
PhippsJ.SkirtonH. (2017). A qualitative study to explore the views and attitudes towards prenatal testing in adults who have Muenke syndrome and their partners. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 26(5), 1130–1142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-017-0094-7
62.
PlumridgeG.MetcalfeA.CoadJ.GillP. (2010). Family communication about genetic risk information: Particular issues for Duchenne muscular dystrophy. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A, 152A(5), 1225–1232. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajmg.a.33364
63.
PlumridgeG.MetcalfeA.CoadJ.GillP. (2011). Parents’ communication with siblings of children affected by an inherited genetic condition. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 20(4), 374–383. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-011-9361-1
64.
RodríguezV. M.CoronaR.BodurthaJ. N.QuillinJ. M. (2016). Family ties: The role of family context in family health history communication about cancer. Journal of Health Communication, 21(3), 346–355. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2015.1080328
RowlandE.MetcalfeA. (2013). Communicating inherited genetic risk between parent and child: A meta-thematic synthesis. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 50(6), 870–880. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2012.09.002
67.
RowlandE.PlumridgeG.ConsidineA.-M.MetcalfeA. (2016). Preparing young people for future decision-making about cancer risk in families affected or at risk from hereditary breast cancer: A qualitative interview study. European Journal of Oncology Nursing, 25, 9–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejon.2016.08.006
SeymourK. C.Addington-HallJ.LucassenA. M.FosterC. L. (2010). What facilitates or impedes family communication following genetic testing for cancer risk? A systematic review and meta-synthesis of primary qualitative research. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 19(4), 330–342. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-010-9296-y
70.
ShahL. L.Daack-HirschS. (2018). Family Communication about genetic risk of hereditary cardiomyopathies and arrhythmias: An Integrative Review. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 27(5), 1022–1039. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-018-0225-9
71.
SobelS.CowanD. (2000a). Impact of genetic testing for Huntington disease on the family system. American Journal of Medical Genetics, 90(1), 49–59. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1096-8628(20000103)90:1<49::AID-AJMG10>3.0.CO;2-3
72.
SobelS.CowanD. (2000b). The process of family reconstruction after DNA testing for Huntington disease. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 9(3), 237–251. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009416021896
73.
SrinivasanS.WonN. Y.DotsonW. D.WrightS. T.RobertsM. C. (2020). Barriers and facilitators for cascade testing in genetic conditions: A systematic review. European Journal of Human Genetics, 28(12), 1631–1644. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-020-00725-5
74.
Van RiperM. (2010). Genomics and the family: Integrative frameworks. In TercyakK. P. (Ed.), Handbook of genomics and the family: Psychosocial context for children and adolescents (pp. 109–139). Springer.
75.
VearsD. F.DunnK. L.WakeS. A.SchefferI. E. (2015). “It’s good to know””: Experiences of gene identification and result disclosure in familial epilepsies. Epilepsy Research, 112, 64–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eplepsyres.2015.02.011
76.
WallanderJ. L.VarniJ. W. (1998). Effects of pediatric chronic physical disorders on child and family adjustment. Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, and allied disciplines, 39(1), 29–46.
77.
WalterF. M.EmeryJ.BraithwaiteD.MarteauT. M. (2004). Lay understanding of familial risk of common chronic diseases: A systematic review and synthesis of qualitative research. Annals of Family Medicine, 2(6), 583–594. https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.242
WilsnackC.YoungJ. L.MerrillS. L.GronerV.LoudJ. T.BremerR. C.GreeneM. H.KhinchaP. P.Werner-LinA. (2021). Family identity and roles in the context of Li–Fraumeni syndrome: “No one’s like us Mutants.”Health & Social Work, 46(4), 299–307. https://doi.org/10.1093/hsw/hlab032
80.
WisemanM.DancygerC.MichieS. (2010). Communicating genetic risk information within families: A review. Familial Cancer, 9(4), 691–703. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10689-010-9380-3
81.
YoungA. L.ButowP. N.RhodesP.TuckerK. M.WilliamsR.HealeyE.WakefieldC. E. (2019). Talking across generations: Family communication about BRCA1 and BRCA2 genetic cancer risk. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 28(3), 516–532. https://doi.org/10.1002/jgc4.1055
82.
YoungA. L.ButowP. N.VetschJ.QuinnV. F.PatenaudeA. F.TuckerK. M.WakefieldC. E. (2017). Family communication, risk perception and cancer knowledge of young adults from BRCA1/2 families: A systematic review. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 26(6), 1179–1196. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-017-0125-4
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
