Citations

Introduction Considerable observational evidence suggests that cancer online support groups reduce feelings of isolation, depression and anxiety, enhance coping and self-management, and lead to better informed patients. Other studies indicate that cancer online support groups can increase distress. Yet no studies theorise the complex, context-dependent mechanisms by which cancer online support groups generate their—sometimes contrasting—outcomes. Methods and analysis Guided by an integrated knowledge translation approach and the strategy for patient-oriented research, we will conduct a realist review of cancer online support groups in partnership with stakeholders. We will follow Pawson’s five steps and existing quality standards to develop a program theory that explains how cancer online support groups work, for whom and in what circumstances. The specific research questions will be: what positive and negative outcomes have been reported on cancer online support groups? What are the mechanisms that are associated with these outcomes, in which contexts and for whom? Through a rigorous review of relevant scientific and grey literature, as well as ongoing dialogue with stakeholders, a program theory will be developed to explain who benefits from cancer online support groups and who does not, what benefits they derive (or do not), and the factors that affect these outcomes. Ethics and dissemination The use of secondary data for this review precludes the need for ethical approval. Dissemination will be informed by the knowledge-to-action framework and will consist of tailored knowledge products that are conceived of collaboratively with stakeholders. These will include peer-reviewed publications on how cancer online support groups can be optimised and best practice recommendations to maximise the benefits experienced by people with cancer. These traditional scientific outputs, along with their respective evidence summaries, will be amplified through strategic social media events hosted and promoted by knowledge users. PROSPERO registration number CRD42021250046.

3567 Background: The ability to genotype large numbers of people rapidly and inexpensively for research purposes highlights the need to develop guidelines for providing medically-relevant research results - including unanticipated findings - to study participants. The Colon Cancer Family Registry (C-CFR) is the oldest and largest international colon cancer population-based registry; its experience managing genetic research findings can offer guidance to clinicians and researchers. The C-CFR has enrolled 10,019 cases with colon cancer and 24,708 family members in six registries in the US, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Deleterious (“high risk”) germline mutations have been identified in DNA mismatch repair (MMR) genes (MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, PMS2) and the MutYH gene. The aims of this presentation are to: (1) report the uptake of genetic test results by C-CFR participants; (2) systematically compare disclosure protocols and barriers to uptake by registry; (3) make recommendations to guide clinicians and researchers. Methods: Uptake of genetic test results was calculated from data collected by the C-CFR; key investigators (KIs) from each registry completed a survey about disclosure decision-making; KIs also took part in discussions to generate recommendations. Results: Registry-wide molecular testing has identified deleterious MMR germline mutations for at least one member of 424 families (4%) and 48 biallelic MutYH gene carriers. Uptake of test results ranged from 56-86% (n= 1542) across registries. Barriers to disclosure include: (1) lack of pre-existing notification protocols; (2) logistics of re-consent; (3) limited involvement of genetic counselors at some registries; (4) in the US, the requirement that genetic testing be performed in a CLIA approved laboratory; (5) IRBs declining approval; and (6) budget constraints. Conclusions: Based on our international registry’s findings we recommend that researchers generating genetic information establish plans for disclosure at the outset; obtain subject consent a priori; consider subject knowledge and disclosure preferences; provide guidance and budget for clinical follow-up; and involve genetic counselors.