Literature DB >> 11807889

All in the family: evaluation of the process and content of sisters' communication about BRCA1 and BRCA2 genetic test results.

Chanita Hughes1, Caryn Lerman, Marc Schwartz, Beth N Peshkin, Lari Wenzel, Steven Narod, Camille Corio, Kenneth P Tercyak, Danielle Hanna, Claudine Isaacs, David Main.   

Abstract

Despite the potential importance of family communication, little is known about the process and content of communicating BRCA1/2 test results to relatives. The objectives of this observational study were to describe the process and content of communicating BRCA1/2 test results to sisters, and to evaluate whether the proband's carrier status influenced communication outcomes. Participants were 43 women who were the first family member to have genetic testing (probands). Probands reported on communication outcomes for 81 sisters. Process and content variables were evaluated 1-month after receipt of BRCA1/2 test results using the Family Communication Questionnaire (FCQ). Overall, BRCA1/2 test results were communicated to 85% of sisters, and carriers communicated their results to significantly more sisters compared to uninformative (96% vs. 76%, FET = 0.02). The most important reason for communicating results was to provide genetic risk information; however, compared to uninformatives, carriers communicated their results to significantly more sisters to obtain emotional support (74%) and to get advice about medical decisions (42%) (FET = 0.001). Carriers also discussed the possibility of discrimination and recommendations for cancer management with significantly more sisters. Among sisters to whom BRCA1/2 test results were not communicated, the most important reason for not sharing test results was because of emotionally distant relationships. The results of this study suggest that probands are likely to quickly communicate their BRCA1/2 test results to relatives and that although needs for social support may motivate family communication, emotionally distant relationships may be a barrier to communication with relatives. Copyright 2001 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2002        PMID: 11807889     DOI: 10.1002/ajmg.10110

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Med Genet        ISSN: 0148-7299


  85 in total

Review 1.  Communicating genetic risk information within families: a review.

Authors:  Mel Wiseman; Caroline Dancyger; Susan Michie
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2010-12       Impact factor: 2.375

2.  Disclosing cancer genetic information within families: perspectives of counselees and their at-risk relatives.

Authors:  Afsaneh Hayat Roshanai; Claudia Lampic; Richard Rosenquist; Karin Nordin
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2010-12       Impact factor: 2.375

3.  Randomized Trial of Telegenetics vs. In-Person Cancer Genetic Counseling: Cost, Patient Satisfaction and Attendance.

Authors:  Adam H Buchanan; Santanu K Datta; Celette Sugg Skinner; Gail P Hollowell; Henry F Beresford; Thomas Freeland; Benjamin Rogers; John Boling; P Kelly Marcom; Martha B Adams
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2015-04-03       Impact factor: 2.537

4.  Facilitating family communication about predictive genetic testing: probands' perceptions.

Authors:  Clara L Gaff; Veronica Collins; Tiffany Symes; Jane Halliday
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 2.537

5.  Letting the family know: balancing ethics and effectiveness when notifying relatives about genetic testing for a familial disorder.

Authors:  G K Suthers; J Armstrong; J McCormack; D Trott
Journal:  J Med Genet       Date:  2005-12-21       Impact factor: 6.318

6.  The role of current affect, anticipated affect and spontaneous self-affirmation in decisions to receive self-threatening genetic risk information.

Authors:  Rebecca A Ferrer; Jennifer M Taber; William M P Klein; Peter R Harris; Katie L Lewis; Leslie G Biesecker
Journal:  Cogn Emot       Date:  2014-12-08

7.  Perceived intrafamily melanoma risk communication.

Authors:  Lois J Loescher; Janice D Crist; Leilani A C L Siaki
Journal:  Cancer Nurs       Date:  2009 May-Jun       Impact factor: 2.592

8.  Women's satisfaction with genetic counseling for hereditary breast-ovarian cancer: psychological aspects.

Authors:  Kenneth P Tercyak; Tiffani A Demarco; Bryn D Mars; Beth N Peshkin
Journal:  Am J Med Genet A       Date:  2004-11-15       Impact factor: 2.802

9.  Women's perceptions of the personal and family impact of genetic cancer risk assessment: focus group findings.

Authors:  Deborah J MacDonald; Linda Sarna; Jeffrey N Weitzel; Betty Ferrell
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2009-11-10       Impact factor: 2.537

10.  Preparing individuals to communicate genetic test results to their relatives: report of a randomized control trial.

Authors:  Susan V Montgomery; Andrea M Barsevick; Brian L Egleston; Ruth Bingler; Karen Ruth; Suzanne M Miller; John Malick; Terrence P Cescon; Mary B Daly
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2013-09       Impact factor: 2.375

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.