Genetic Counseling Intervention Research Articles

Goldenhar syndrome

Summary Goldenhar syndrome is a condition characterized by alterations involving the development of the structures of the first and second branchial arches. The abnormalities primarily affect the face, the eyes, the spine, and the ears, and the auricular abnormalities are associated with possible hearing loss. Here, we present a review of the literature on Goldenhar syndrome, discussing what is known about the clinical phenotype , the aetiology, audiological findings and treatment,in order to provide certain help for people about disease diagnosis, genetic counseling and hearing intervention.

2067 Developing a cultural adaptation of a telephone genetic counseling intervention for Latina women at-risk of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: The overall goal of this project is to enhance the use of GCRA in Latina breast cancer survivors at high risk of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer to reduce disparities in GCRA uptake. The aims of the study are to (1) develop a cultural adaptation of an evidence-based TGC intervention that consists of phone genetic counseling and a booklet, (2) evaluate the impact of TGC Versus Usual Care, and (3) explore the communication patterns in TGC and genetic counseling sessions with an interpreter. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: We are conducting a 2-phase, mixed methods study. In Phase I we will develop a cultural adaption of an evidence-based intervention (TGC) for high-risk Latina breast cancer survivors using the Learner Verification and Revision Framework (n=15). In Phase II we will use a cluster randomized design with four community sites randomized to Spanish TGC (n=2 sites) or usual care (n=2 sites) (n=60; 15 per site). The primary outcome is genetic counseling uptake. Among women who receive genetic counseling either through TGC (n~30) or with an interpreter (n~15), we will assess counseling quality by reviewing 20 randomly selected audiotaped sessions (10 TGC; 10 interpreters). We will evaluate women’s HBOC knowledge and satisfaction with counseling. Communication processes and outcomes will be assessed using gold standard RIAS quantitative coding system and qualitative discourse analysis. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: We elicited input from transdisciplinary team members to develop an initial adaptation of a TGC print booklet and intervention protocol for use with high-risk Latina breast cancer survivors with limited English proficiency. The booklet contains low-literacy information about HBOC, risk factors, pros and cons of testing, and management strategies. Based on these materials and prior work, we anticipate TGC will consist of one 1 hour or less TGC session by phone. Participants interested in pursuing testing will receive a saliva kit and will participate in a second TGC session (30 min) to discuss test results and management options. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Given access barriers and the shortage of Spanish-speaking genetic counselors, adapting and translating TGC intervention is a promising strategy that could reduce disparities by broadening the reach and accessibility to genetic counseling while enhancing the quality of the service for Latinas with limited English proficiency.

The Certainty of Uncertainty in Genomic Medicine: Managing the Challenge

While uncertainty has long been a hallmark of the practice of medicine, the need for attention to its management is gaining focus with the movement of genomic testing from the specialist genetics service into mainstream health care. Uncertainty management first requires an understanding of all of the dimensions of uncertainty including recognition of the sources (probability or risk, ambiguity and complexity), the issues (scientific, personal and practical) and the loci (patients/family/research participants, laboratory personnel, clinicians, research investigators and policy makers). At the same time, it is also important to recognise that uncertainty is not always problematic, and therefore needs to be avoided or eradicated or that its psychological impact is necessarily negative. This means that management strategies that foster resilience, welfare, autonomy and solidarity when offering genomic testing may assist in ensuring those receiving and offering genomic health care are prepared for the inevitable uncertainties generated and present results with positive framing. The genetic counseling interventions currently proposed as management strategies are underpinned by, first, pre-test counseling that addresses potential uncertainty as part of the informed consent process. Secondly, a care relationship developed at result delivery fosters trust. This may assist in continued engagement and re-contact with services to facilitate possible future resolution of the interpretation of the genomic result. Nevertheless, it is essential that any intervention is evaluated so that it can be promoted with assurance of rigor.

Feasibility of Coping Effectiveness Training for Caregivers of Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder: a Genetic Counseling Intervention.

Caregivers of children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) may find it difficult to feel a sense of control and to cope with the overall physical and emotional demands of caring for their child. While caregivers are able to successfully cope with a high level of stress, there are limits to their resources and abilities to cope over time. Genetic counselors working with affected families may be able to help parents more effectively manage stress related to the disorder. Few short-term interventions have been reported in genetic counseling yet implementation of evidence-based examples may be achievable. This study aimed to assess the feasibility of a coping effectiveness training (CET) intervention designed to enhance coping self-efficacy (CSE) among caregivers of children with ASD, with the eventual goal of translating this intervention into genetic counseling practice. A randomized treatment-control design was used to investigate the feasibility of an intervention using CET among caregivers of children with ASD. The primary outcome was the feasibility of the intervention; the secondary outcome was improvements in CSE in the intervention group as compared to the control group. Caregivers were recruited and randomized into the treatment (n=15) or control (n=13) groups. Of these, 22 completed the study (retention: 78.6%). The intervention was highly feasible; most caregivers found the CET helpful, practical, useful, and relatively easy to attend. The treatment group demonstrated significantly increased CSE from pre-intervention to post-intervention (p=0.02). Between group differences were not significant when comparing the pre-post changes. We provide preliminary evidence that CET may be beneficial to caregivers of children with ASD. The results of this feasibility study support development of a phase II study of this intervention in a larger cohort, aimed to be implemented into a genetic counseling setting.

Standards for the Reporting of Genetic Counseling Interventions in Research and Other Studies (GCIRS): an NSGC Task Force Report

As the demand for evidence to support the value of genetic counseling increases, it is critical that reporting of genetic counseling interventions in research and other types of studies (e.g. process improvement or service evaluation studies) adopt greater rigor. As in other areas of healthcare, the appraisal, synthesis, and translation of research findings into genetic counseling practice are likely to be improved if clear specifications of genetic counseling interventions are reported when studies involving genetic counseling are published. To help improve reporting practices, the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC) convened a task force in 2015 to develop consensus standards for the reporting of genetic counseling interventions. Following review by the NSGC Board of Directors, the NSGC Practice Guidelines Committee and the editorial board of the Journal of Genetic Counseling, 23 items across 8 domains were proposed as standards for the reporting of genetic counseling interventions in the published literature (GCIRS: Genetic Counseling Intervention Reporting Standards). The authors recommend adoption of these standards by authors and journals when reporting studies involving genetic counseling interventions.

The Added Value of CBT in the Genetic Counseling Process: Concept Development, State of the Art and New Directions

The definition published by the National Society of Genetic Counselors’ Task Force states that genetic counseling is the process of facilitating people’s understanding and adaptation to the medical, psychological, and familial collateral consequences of genetic diseases. Although the definition of genetic counseling practice goes beyond giving medical information, the great majority of studies, which tested the efficacy of a genetic counseling intervention, focused mainly on providing medical information and seemed to have given less attention to more specific psychological interventions, which could have addressed emotional distress and significant behavioral change relevant to the medical outcomes. Although most genetic counseling theorists recognize the complex emotional, behavioral, and family contexts in which the counselees find themselves during this process, very few studies have investigated the role of specific psychological interventions in the genetic counseling package. Cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) is the counseling framework with the most empirical support for a wide range of psychological problems. Consequently, we propose an evidence-based system of psychological interventions CBT that could be added to the genetic counseling paradigm in helping clients deal with specific difficult life situations and the emotional distress associated with them.

Outcomes of a randomised controlled trial of a complex genetic counselling intervention to improve family communication

When an inherited genetic condition is diagnosed in an individual it has implications for other family members. Privacy legislation and ethical considerations can restrict health professionals from communicating directly with other family members, and so it is frequently the responsibility of the first person in a family to receive the diagnosis (the proband) to share this news. Communication of genetic information is challenging and many at-risk family members remain unaware of important information that may be relevant to their or their children's health. We conducted a randomised controlled trial in six public hospitals to assess whether a specifically designed telephone counselling intervention improved family communication about a new genetic diagnosis. Ninety-five probands/parents of probands were recruited from genetics clinics and randomised to the intervention or control group. The primary outcome measure was the difference between the proportion of at-risk relatives who contacted genetics services for information and/or genetic testing. Audit of the family genetic file after 18 months revealed that 25.6% of intervention group relatives compared with 20.9% of control group relatives made contact with genetic services (adjusted odds ratio (OR) 1.30, 95% confidence interval 0.70-2.42, P=0.40). Although no major difference was detected overall between the intervention and control groups, there was more contact in the intervention group where the genetic condition conferred a high risk to offspring (adjusted OR 24.0, 95% confidence interval 3.4-168.5, P=0.001). The increasing sophistication and scope of genetic testing makes it imperative for health professionals to consider additional ways of supporting families in communicating genetic information.

Improving family communication after a new genetic diagnosis: a randomised controlled trial of a genetic counselling intervention.

BackgroundGenetic information given to an individual newly diagnosed with a genetic condition is likely to have important health implications for other family members. The task of communicating with these relatives commonly falls to the newly diagnosed person. Talking to relatives about genetic information can be challenging and is influenced by many factors including family dynamics. Research shows that many relatives remain unaware of relevant genetic information and the possible impact on their own health. This study aims to evaluate whether a specific genetic counselling intervention for people newly diagnosed with a genetic condition, implemented over the telephone on a number of occasions, could increase the number of at-risk relatives who make contact with genetics services after a new genetic diagnosis within a family.MethodsThis is a prospective, multi-centre randomised controlled trial being conducted at genetics clinics at five public hospitals in Victoria, Australia. A complex genetic counselling intervention has been developed specifically for this trial. Probands (the first person in a family to present with a diagnosis of a genetic condition) are being recruited and randomised into one of two arms – the telephone genetic counselling intervention arm and the control arm receiving usual care. The number of at-risk relatives for each proband will be estimated from a family pedigree collected at the time of diagnosis. The primary outcome will be measured by comparing the proportion of at-risk relatives in each arm of the trial who make subsequent contact with genetics services.DiscussionThis study, the first randomised controlled trial of a complex genetic counselling intervention to enhance family communication, will provide evidence about how best to assist probands to communicate important new genetic information to their at-risk relatives. This will inform genetic counselling practice in the context of future genomic testing.Trial registrationAustralia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Register (ANZCTR): ANZCTRN12608000642381.

A Genetic Counseling Intervention to Facilitate Family Communication About Inherited Conditions

This paper describes the development and implementation of the first intervention to facilitate family communication of genetic information based on a genetic counseling model of practice. The intervention is telephone-based and therefore designed to complement face-to-face genetic counseling consultations. It was developed by firstly reviewing the literature and a model of genetic counseling practice, leading to definition of seven core principles underpinning the intervention. A counseling framework based on these principles was developed through iterative role playing and review, tested for consistency with good practice and piloted on ten study participants. It was found to be feasible to implement and consistent with good genetic counseling practice. Implementation included training of the genetic counselors who would deliver the intervention as part of a randomized controlled trial. Noteworthy deviations from good genetic counseling practice were observed, with unexpected additional insights into the 'black box' of genetic counseling that may have wider implications and would benefit from further investigation. The intervention is currently being evaluated in a randomized controlled trial, to assess its impact on the number of family members attending genetic services.

Could Triaging Family History of Cancer during Palliative Care Enable Earlier Genetic Counseling Intervention?

Patients are commonly referred to cancer genetics services when all affected family members are deceased. This makes genetic testing and risk assessment more difficult, reducing the benefit from screening and prophylactic treatment. Observational, retrospective, cohort study of 508 randomly selected patients referred to a regional cancer genetics unit, using review of case notes to explore whether a simple clinical "3, 2, 1" family history rule could have been used to improve timely and appropriate referrals for genetic assessment. The 3, 2, 1 criteria are: three affected relatives with the same/associated cancers, across two generations, with at least one person affected age <50 years. Most (71% [362]) genetic risk assessment referrals were in unaffected individuals and 22% (80) of these were referred after all affected family members had died, including 24% (19) who lost their last remaining affected relative in the previous year. Most (59% [301]) referrals met all 3, 2, 1 criteria, and 67% of these could have been made earlier in clinical practice. A further 23% (115) met two of the three criteria. Using a simple "3, 2, 1" family rule in cancer care and particularly in palliative care could enable earlier cancer genetic risk assessment for unaffected relatives, improving the potential to benefit from targeted screening and intervention.

Making sense of risk diagnosis in case of prenatal and reproductive genetic counselling for neuromuscular diseases

This study explored the processes of significance about the risk communication in prenatal/preconception setting within 1 month to the end of genetic counselling intervention. Participants were all attending a programme of Cardiomyology and Medical Genetics in Naples, Italy, for the first time. Transcripts of 18 semi-structured interviews were analysed using interpretative phenomenological analysis. Themes arising included the following: the familiar outcomes of genetic counselling, the risk representation and the impacts on decision-making. The findings suggest the significance of the experience of genetic risk and the implications for the support of individuals and their family after the conclusion of the genetic counselling intervention.

Apert′s syndrome: Report of a rare case

Apert's syndrome (AS), a form of acrocephalosyndactyly, is a rare congenital disorder with autosomal dominant mode of transmission; characterized by craniosynostosis, midface hypoplasia, and syndactyly of hands and feet. The rarity of the syndrome and similarity of features with other craniosynostosis syndromes makes it a diagnostic dilemma. Genetic counseling and early intervention form an essential part of treatment. Because of the paucity of reported cases in Indian literature and typical features in oral cavity, a dentist should be competent to diagnose and form a part of the multidisciplinary management team. Here, we report a case of a 14-year-old boy with AS.

Personalized Genetic Risk Counseling to Motivate Diabetes Prevention

OBJECTIVETo examine whether diabetes genetic risk testing and counseling can improve diabetes prevention behaviors.RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODSWe conducted a randomized trial of diabetes genetic risk counseling among overweight patients at increased phenotypic risk for type 2 diabetes. Participants were randomly allocated to genetic testing versus no testing. Genetic risk was calculated by summing 36 single nucleotide polymorphisms associated with type 2 diabetes. Participants in the top and bottom score quartiles received individual genetic counseling before being enrolled with untested control participants in a 12-week, validated, diabetes prevention program. Middle-risk quartile participants were not studied further. We examined the effect of this genetic counseling intervention on patient self-reported attitudes, program attendance, and weight loss, separately comparing higher-risk and lower-risk result recipients with control participants.RESULTSThe 108 participants enrolled in the diabetes prevention program included 42 participants at higher diabetes genetic risk, 32 at lower diabetes genetic risk, and 34 untested control subjects. Mean age was 57.9 ± 10.6 years, 61% were men, and average BMI was 34.8 kg/m2, with no differences among randomization groups. Participants attended 6.8 ± 4.3 group sessions and lost 8.5 ± 10.1 pounds, with 33 of 108 (30.6%) losing ≥5% body weight. There were few statistically significant differences in self-reported motivation, program attendance, or mean weight loss when higher-risk recipients and lower-risk recipients were compared with control subjects (P > 0.05 for all but one comparison).CONCLUSIONSDiabetes genetic risk counseling with currently available variants does not significantly alter self-reported motivation or prevention program adherence for overweight individuals at risk for diabetes.

Prevalence and Causes of Monocular Childhood Blindness in a Rural Population in Southern India

To determine the prevalence and etiology of childhood monocular blindness in a rural population in southern India. A total of 14,423 children younger than 15 years in randomly selected villages (8,222 households) with a total population of 40,336 were screened. Screening was performed in two stages. In the first stage, all children with visual acuity worse than 6/18 in at least one eye were screened. Subsequently, children with visual acuity worse than 3/60 in one eye were referred to a tertiary care hospital for further examination for determination of the cause of visual impairment. The age range of affected children was 1 to 15 years (median age: 12 years). Fifteen children had monocular visual impairment, yielding a prevalence rate of 1.13 in 1,000 children. Refractive error leading to amblyopia was the most common cause of monocular visual impairment, followed by trauma, congenital disorders, and vitamin A deficiency. One case had toxoplasmosis. Approximately one-third of the children were born of a consanguineous marriage (30.06%). The proportion of first-degree consanguinity (46.4%) was higher than that of second-degree (37.5%) or third-degree (16.1%) consanguinity. The prevalence of childhood monocular blindness was high in the current study, but most causes were preventable or treatable. Improved screening methods (especially for refractive errors), genetic counseling, and therapeutic interventions can reduce the burden of childhood blindness.

Genetic Counseling as a Tool for Type 2 Diabetes Prevention: A Genetic Counseling Framework for Common Polygenetic Disorders

Advances in genetic epidemiology have increased understanding of common, polygenic preventable diseases such as type 2 diabetes. As genetic risk testing based on this knowledge moves into clinical practice, we propose that genetic counselors will need to expand their roles and adapt traditional counseling techniques for this new patient set. In this paper, we present a genetic counseling intervention developed for a clinical trial [Genetic Counseling/Lifestyle Change for Diabetes Prevention, ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01034319] designed to motivate behavioral changes for diabetes prevention. Seventy-two phenotypically high-risk participants received counseling that included their diabetes genetic risk score, general education about diabetes risk factors, and encouragement to participate in a diabetes prevention program. Using two validated genetic counseling scales, participants reported favorable perceived control and satisfaction with the counseling session. Our intervention represents one model for applying traditional genetic counseling principles to risk testing for polygenetic, preventable diseases, such as type 2 diabetes.

Design of a randomized trial of diabetes genetic risk testing to motivate behavior change: the Genetic Counseling/lifestyle Change (GC/LC) Study for Diabetes Prevention.

The efficacy of diabetes genetic risk testing to motivate behavior change for diabetes prevention is currently unknown. This paper presents key issues in the design and implementation of one of the first randomized trials (The Genetic Counseling/Lifestyle Change (GC/LC) Study for Diabetes Prevention) to test whether knowledge of diabetes genetic risk can motivate patients to adopt healthier behaviors. Because individuals may react differently to receiving 'higher' vs 'lower' genetic risk results, we designed a 3-arm parallel group study to separately test the hypotheses that: (1) patients receiving 'higher' diabetes genetic risk results will increase healthy behaviors compared to untested controls, and (2) patients receiving 'lower' diabetes genetic risk results will decrease healthy behaviors compared to untested controls. In this paper we describe several challenges to implementing this study, including: (1) the application of a novel diabetes risk score derived from genetic epidemiology studies to a clinical population, (2) the use of the principle of Mendelian randomization to efficiently exclude 'average' diabetes genetic risk patients from the intervention, and (3) the development of a diabetes genetic risk counseling intervention that maintained the ethical need to motivate behavior change in both 'higher' and 'lower' diabetes genetic risk result recipients. Diabetes genetic risk scores were developed by aggregating the results of 36 diabetes-associated single nucleotide polymorphisms. Relative risk for type 2 diabetes was calculated using Framingham Offspring Study outcomes, grouped by quartiles into 'higher', 'average' (middle two quartiles) and 'lower' genetic risk. From these relative risks, revised absolute risks were estimated using the overall absolute risk for the study group. For study efficiency, we excluded all patients receiving 'average' diabetes risk results from the subsequent intervention. This post-randomization allocation strategy was justified because genotype represents a random allocation of parental alleles ('Mendelian randomization'). Finally, because it would be unethical to discourage participants to participate in diabetes prevention behaviors, we designed our two diabetes genetic risk counseling interventions (for 'higher' and 'lower' result recipients) so that both groups would be motivated despite receiving opposing results. For this initial assessment of the clinical implementation of genetic risk testing we assessed intermediate outcomes of attendance at a 12-week diabetes prevention course and changes in self-reported motivation. If effective, longer term studies with larger sample sizes will be needed to assess whether knowledge of diabetes genetic risk can help patients prevent diabetes. We designed a randomized clinical trial designed to explore the motivational impact of disclosing both higher than average and lower than average genetic risk for type 2 diabetes. This design allowed exploration of both increased risk and false reassurance, and has implications for future studies in translational genomics.

Moderators of cancer‐related distress and worry after a pancreatic cancer genetic counseling and screening intervention

Although the hereditary breast and ovarian cancer literature has demonstrated short-term gains in psychological adjustment following genetic counseling, there has been limited research examining long-term outcomes and moderators. Moreover, there has been minimal research into the psychological effects of this intervention in populations at high risk for pancreatic cancer. This study examines the long-term effects of pancreatic cancer screening and genetic counseling on cancer-related distress and cancer worry in a high-risk population at 1-year follow-up. Additionally, this study explores potential moderators of the effectiveness of this intervention. One hundred twenty-nine participants with familial pancreatic cancer or with the BRCA2 gene mutation completed a baseline questionnaire prior to their first pancreatic cancer screening and genetic counseling session. Participants also completed questionnaires at 3- and 12-month follow-up. Cancer-related intrusive thoughts decreased significantly over time, whereas cancer-related worry decreased at 3 months and showed a small but significant increase at 1 year. Age and baseline distress exhibited moderator effects. Younger individuals showed a significant decrease in cancer-related intrusive thoughts, cancer-related avoidant thoughts, and cancer worry. Additionally, individuals with greater baseline distress showed a significant decrease in cancer-related intrusive thoughts over time. Analysis of the long-term effects of pancreatic cancer screening and genetic testing reveal psychological gains that are maintained at 1-year follow-up. This intervention is particularly effective for younger participants and individuals with greater baseline distress.

The impact of genetic counseling on knowledge and emotional responses in Spanish population with family history of breast cancer

Objective To assess a genetic counseling intervention measuring the distress, cancer risk perception, anxiety, worry and level of knowledge in people with familial history of breast cancer. Methods One group pre- and post-test design. A total of 212 individuals completed a baseline questionnaire, 88.6% completed a second questionnaire one month later and 75.4% six months later. Results Counseling intervention significantly increased the knowledge level of the individuals who received genetic education and significantly decreased the cancer worry levels. Persons with low perception of their cancer risk also had low worry levels. There were no significant changes over time in cancer risk perception or in quality of life. Conclusion Counseling in a high risk population seems to decrease cancer worry and to increase cancer knowledge thus enabling a counselee to take well-informed decisions. Furthermore, according to our results, such interventions do not increase anxiety and do not modify the quality of life, but do not adjust their cancer risk perception. Practice implications Providing individuals at increased risk of breast cancer genetic services seem to enhance their understanding of breast cancer without causing adverse psychological effects or changes in their quality of life, and it could improve their preventive behaviours.

Family risk and related education and counseling needs: Perceptions of adults with bipolar disorder and siblings of adults with bipolar disorder

Genetics and mental health professionals increasingly provide education and counseling related to risk for psychiatric illness, but there is insufficient evidence about patient perceptions and needs to guide such interventions. Affected individuals and relatives may perceive increased family risk and have interest in genetic education and counseling. Our objectives were to explore perceptions of family vulnerability, perceived control, and coping strategies related to familial risk and needs from genetic counseling. Our methods included conducting semi-structured interviews (n = 48) with individuals with bipolar disorder (BPD) and unaffected siblings. Content analysis generated descriptive data that provide guidance for clinical interventions and themes to evaluate in future studies. The results showed that participants perceived increased personal and family risk, attributing BPD to genes and family environment. Causal attributions were often uncertain and at times inconsistent. Participants wished to modify psychiatric risk to relatives, but were uncertain how to do so; despite the uncertainty, most parents reported risk-modification efforts. Efforts to cope with family vulnerability included monitoring and cognitive distancing. Participants endorsed the usefulness of education and psychological support, but described more ambivalence about receiving risk assessment. Educational and supportive interventions around family risk for BPD should focus on perceptions of cause and vulnerability, reproductive decision-making, and early intervention and risk modification in young relatives. Psychological support is an important component. Providers should evaluate patient coping strategies, which could facilitate or hinder genetic counseling interventions, and should not assume interest in quantitative risk assessment.

Psychological status of patients with mucopolysaccharidosis type II and their parents

The aim of the present study was to delineate the psychological status of 10 patients with the attenuated phenotype of mucopolysaccharidosis type II (MPS-II) and their parents (six fathers and five mothers) for the improvement of clinical management. Intellectual ability was evaluated using the Wechsler Intelligence Scale. Activities of daily living (ADL) was assessed using the Functional Independence Measure. The personality and psychiatric aspects were analyzed using the Yatabe-Guilford Personality test (Y-G test) and the Tree-Drawing Test. Mental health was assessed using the General Health Questionnaire 60 (GHQ-60) and State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI). Intellectual background, measured with full-scale, verbal and performance IQ, were 72.8, 76.1 and 79.3, respectively. Nine of 10 patients were not judged as having neurosis and a psychotic tendency with the Y-G test. In the tree-drawing test, many patients drew a tree without ground, suggesting that they have difficulties in making relationships with surrounding people and the community. The child patient with a psychosis pattern on the Y-G test, drew a bizarre tree, suggesting psychological problems. GHQ-60 and STAI survey indicated that the patients and their parents had higher levels of anxiety. A significant negative correlation between GHQ-60 score and ADL (R = -0.77) was identified, suggesting that the psychological status may worsen as ADL decreases. Patients with MPS-II and their parents had higher risks for mental problems. Understanding psychological status is essential when providing genetic counseling or therapeutic intervention.