PURPOSE/ OBJECTIVES: To compare outcomes of pretest education about breast cancer susceptibility testing provided by nurses and genetic counselors. DESIGN: Two-group, post-test only evaluation of an educational intervention. SETTING: A tertiary care hospital. SAMPLE: 87 women who had a first-degree relative with premenopausal breast cancer; six specially-trained providers (four genetic counselors and two nurses). METHODS: Self-administered questionnaire completed immediately following education sessions. MAIN RESEARCH VARIABLES: Subjects' understanding of the limitations of testing, perceived autonomy in decision making, and satisfaction; partnership as perceived by subjects and providers. FINDINGS: After the sessions, 62% of subjects understood the limitations of testing, 98% reported a high degree of perceived autonomy in decision making, 81% were highly satisfied with the session, and 91% reported forming a partnership with their providers. Lower perceived partnership reported by genetic counselors was the only significant difference by provider type. CONCLUSIONS: With training and supervision, nurses and genetic counselors can be equally effective in providing education about genetic testing for breast cancer susceptibility in research settings. Additional research is needed to determine the outcomes of education provided in clinical settings. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE: As the demand for education about genetic testing for cancer susceptibility increases, nurses need to be educated and trained to provide this service.
PURPOSE/ OBJECTIVES: To compare outcomes of pretest education about breast cancer susceptibility testing provided by nurses and genetic counselors. DESIGN: Two-group, post-test only evaluation of an educational intervention. SETTING: A tertiary care hospital. SAMPLE: 87 women who had a first-degree relative with premenopausal breast cancer; six specially-trained providers (four genetic counselors and two nurses). METHODS: Self-administered questionnaire completed immediately following education sessions. MAIN RESEARCH VARIABLES: Subjects' understanding of the limitations of testing, perceived autonomy in decision making, and satisfaction; partnership as perceived by subjects and providers. FINDINGS: After the sessions, 62% of subjects understood the limitations of testing, 98% reported a high degree of perceived autonomy in decision making, 81% were highly satisfied with the session, and 91% reported forming a partnership with their providers. Lower perceived partnership reported by genetic counselors was the only significant difference by provider type. CONCLUSIONS: With training and supervision, nurses and genetic counselors can be equally effective in providing education about genetic testing for breast cancer susceptibility in research settings. Additional research is needed to determine the outcomes of education provided in clinical settings. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE: As the demand for education about genetic testing for cancer susceptibility increases, nurses need to be educated and trained to provide this service.
Authors: Nancy L Keating; Kathryn A Stoeckert; Meredith M Regan; Lisa DiGianni; Judy E Garber Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-11-10 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Peter D Beitsch; Pat W Whitworth; Kevin Hughes; Rakesh Patel; Barry Rosen; Gia Compagnoni; Paul Baron; Rache Simmons; Linda Ann Smith; Ian Grady; Michael Kinney; Cynara Coomer; Karen Barbosa; Dennis R Holmes; Eric Brown; Linsey Gold; Patricia Clark; Lee Riley; Samuel Lyons; Antonio Ruiz; Sadia Kahn; Heather MacDonald; Lisa Curcio; Mary Kay Hardwick; Shan Yang; Ed D Esplin; Robert L Nussbaum Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2018-12-07 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Barbara A Bernhardt; Cynda H Rushton; Joseph Carrese; Reed E Pyeritz; Ken Kolodner; Gail Geller Journal: Genet Med Date: 2009-07 Impact factor: 8.822