Literature DB >> 10070883

The impact of genetic counselling on risk perception and mental health in women with a family history of breast cancer.

M Watson1, S Lloyd, J Davidson, L Meyer, R Eeles, S Ebbs, V Murday.   

Abstract

The present study investigated: (1) perception of genetic risk and, (2) the psychological effects of genetic counselling in women with a family history of breast cancer. Using a prospective design, with assessment pre- and post-genetic counselling at clinics and by postal follow-up at 1, 6 and 12 months, attenders at four South London genetic clinics were assessed. Participants included 282 women with a family history of breast cancer. Outcome was measured in terms of mental health, cancer-specific distress and risk perception. High levels of cancer-specific distress were found pre-genetic counselling, with 28% of participants reporting that they worried about breast cancer 'frequently or constantly' and 18% that worry about breast cancer was 'a severe or definite problem'. Following genetic counselling, levels of cancer-specific distress were unchanged. General mental health remained unchanged over time (33% psychiatric cases detected pre-genetic counselling, 27% at 12 months after genetic counselling). Prior to their genetics consultation, participants showed poor knowledge of their lifetime risk of breast cancer since there was no association between their perceived lifetime risk (when they were asked to express this as a 1 in x odds ratio) and their actual risk, when the latter was calculated by the geneticist at the clinic using the CASH model. In contrast, women were more accurate about their risk of breast cancer pre-genetic counselling when this was assessed in broad categorical terms (i.e. very much lower/very much higher than the average woman) with a significant association between this rating and the subsequently calculated CASH risk figure (P = 0.001). Genetic counselling produced a modest shift in the accuracy of perceived lifetime risk, expressed as an odds ratio, which was maintained at 12 months' follow-up. A significant minority failed to benefit from genetic counselling; 77 women continued to over-estimate their risk and maintain high levels of cancer-related worry. Most clinic attenders were inaccurate in their estimates of the population risk of breast cancer with only 24% able to give the correct figure prior to genetic counselling and 36% over-estimating this risk. There was some improvement following genetic counselling with 62% able to give the correct figure, but this information was poorly retained and this figure had dropped to 34% by the 1-year follow-up. The study showed that women attending for genetic counselling are worried about breast cancer, with 34% indicating that they had initiated the referral to the genetic clinic themselves. This anxiety is not alleviated by genetic counselling, although women reported that it was less of a problem at follow-up. Women who continue to over-estimate their risk and worry about breast cancer are likely to go on seeking unnecessary screening if they are not reassured.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10070883      PMCID: PMC2362694          DOI: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6690139

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Cancer        ISSN: 0007-0920            Impact factor:   7.640


  13 in total

1.  Genetic counseling: a consumers' view.

Authors:  C O Leonard; G A Chase; B Childs
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1972-08-31       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 2.  Adherence and psychological adjustment among women at high risk for breast cancer.

Authors:  C Lerman; M Schwartz
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  1993-11       Impact factor: 4.872

3.  Psychological characteristics of women electing to attend a breast screening clinic.

Authors:  T Morris; S Greer
Journal:  Clin Oncol       Date:  1982-06

4.  Family history of breast cancer: what do women understand and recall about their genetic risk?

Authors:  M Watson; V Duvivier; M Wade Walsh; S Ashley; J Davidson; M Papaikonomou; V Murday; N Sacks; R Eeles
Journal:  J Med Genet       Date:  1998-09       Impact factor: 6.318

5.  Psychological and behavioral implications of abnormal mammograms.

Authors:  C Lerman; B Trock; B K Rimer; A Boyce; C Jepson; P F Engstrom
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  1991-04-15       Impact factor: 25.391

6.  A strong candidate for the breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility gene BRCA1.

Authors:  Y Miki; J Swensen; D Shattuck-Eidens; P A Futreal; K Harshman; S Tavtigian; Q Liu; C Cochran; L M Bennett; W Ding
Journal:  Science       Date:  1994-10-07       Impact factor: 47.728

7.  Psychological distress and surveillance behaviors of women with a family history of breast cancer.

Authors:  K M Kash; J C Holland; M S Halper; D G Miller
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1992-01-01       Impact factor: 13.506

8.  Impact of Event Scale: a measure of subjective stress.

Authors:  M Horowitz; N Wilner; W Alvarez
Journal:  Psychosom Med       Date:  1979-05       Impact factor: 4.312

9.  Genetic analysis of breast cancer in the cancer and steroid hormone study.

Authors:  E B Claus; N Risch; W D Thompson
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  1991-02       Impact factor: 11.025

10.  The impact of genetic counselling on risk perception in women with a family history of breast cancer.

Authors:  D G Evans; V Blair; R Greenhalgh; P Hopwood; A Howell
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  1994-11       Impact factor: 7.640

View more
  73 in total

1.  Tensions in implementing the new genetics. General practitioners in south Wales are unconvinced of their role in genetics services.

Authors:  G Elwyn; J Gray; R Iredale
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2000-07-22

2.  Direct-to-Consumer genetic testing: what are we talking about?

Authors:  Meredith Weaver; Toni I Pollin
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2012-03-10       Impact factor: 2.537

Review 3.  Research issues in genetic testing of adolescents for obesity.

Authors:  Mary E Segal; Pamela Sankar; Danielle R Reed
Journal:  Nutr Rev       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 7.110

4.  Short- and long-term impact of receiving genetic mutation results in women at increased risk for hereditary breast cancer.

Authors:  Jacqueline Lim; Mariette Macluran; Melanie Price; Barbara Bennett; Phyllis Butow
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 2.537

5.  Psychosocial conditions of women awaiting genetic counseling: a population-based study.

Authors:  Ellen M Mikkelsen; Lone Sunde; Christoffer Johansen; Søren P Johnsen
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2008-02-07       Impact factor: 2.537

6.  Risky communication: pitfalls in counseling about risk, and how to avoid them.

Authors:  K O'Doherty; G K Suthers
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2007-05-01       Impact factor: 2.537

7.  Psychological factors associated with emotional responses to receiving genetic risk information.

Authors:  Paul Bennett; Clare Wilkinson; Jim Turner; Kate Brain; Rhiannon Tudor Edwards; Gethin Griffith; Barbara France; Jonathon Gray
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2008-02-08       Impact factor: 2.537

8.  Assessment of psychosocial outcomes in genetic counseling research: an overview of available measurement scales.

Authors:  Nadine A Kasparian; Claire E Wakefield; Bettina Meiser
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2007-08-13       Impact factor: 2.537

9.  Risk perception, worry and satisfaction related to genetic counseling for hereditary cancer.

Authors:  Cathrine Bjorvatn; Geir Egil Eide; Berit Rokne Hanestad; Nina Øyen; Odd E Havik; Anniken Carlsson; Gunilla Berglund
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 2.537

10.  Cancer genetic counselees' self-reported psychological distress, changes in life, and adherence to recommended surveillance programs 3-7 years post counseling.

Authors:  Afsaneh Hayat Roshanai; Richard Rosenquist; Claudia Lampic; Karin Nordin
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2009-02-11       Impact factor: 2.537

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.