Literature DB >> 12061481

What is the impact of genetic counselling in women at increased risk of developing hereditary breast cancer? A meta-analytic review.

Bettina Meiser1, Jane L Halliday.   

Abstract

Meta-analytic methods were used to determine the impact of genetic counselling on women with a family history of breast cancer. Published studies with prospective designs and randomized controlled trials were included in the review, and the psychological outcomes assessed were generalized psychological distress, generalized anxiety, depression, and breast cancer anxiety. Other outcomes investigated were the accuracy of perceived risk of developing breast cancer, breast cancer genetics knowledge and breast cancer screening uptake. A meta-analysis was performed to estimate effect size, where sufficient data were available. A total of 12 studies, most of which measured several outcomes, met at least one of the inclusion criteria. A sufficiently large number of studies were available to assess the magnitude of effects on three outcomes: generalized psychological distress, generalized anxiety and accuracy of perceived risk of developing breast cancer. The quantitative synthesis showed that genetic counselling leads to statistically significant decreases in generalized anxiety, with an average weighted effect sizes of r = - 0.17 (p<0.01). In contrast, the reduction in psychological distress exhibited a trend towards statistical significance only, with r = -0.074 (p = 0.052). The impact of genetic counselling on the accuracy of perceived risk was associated with an effect size of r = 0.56 (p<0.01). Thus in this meta-analysis, we demonstrated the efficacy of genetic counselling in meeting two of its objectives: reducing women's anxiety levels and improving the accuracy of their perceived risk. This review highlighted that most research so far focused on generalized distress and anxiety and accuracy of perceived risk, to the exclusion of other, perhaps equally important, types of outcomes. Future studies are likely to lead to more comprehensive assessments if additional emotional, cognitive and behavioural outcomes are included in the assessment.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12061481     DOI: 10.1016/s0277-9536(01)00133-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Soc Sci Med        ISSN: 0277-9536            Impact factor:   4.634


  63 in total

1.  Risky business: risk perception and the use of medical services among customers of DTC personal genetic testing.

Authors:  David J Kaufman; Juli M Bollinger; Rachel L Dvoskin; Joan A Scott
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2012-01-26       Impact factor: 2.537

2.  Recommendation recall and satisfaction after attending breast/ovarian cancer risk counseling.

Authors:  Sharon L Bober; Lizbeth A Hoke; Rosemary B Duda; Nadine M Tung
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2007-08-04       Impact factor: 2.537

Review 3.  Illness representations, self-regulation, and genetic counseling: a theoretical review.

Authors:  Shoshana Shiloh
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2006-10       Impact factor: 2.537

4.  Knowledge and expectations of women undergoing cancer genetic risk assessment: a qualitative analysis of free-text questionnaire comments.

Authors:  C Phelps; F Wood; P Bennett; K Brain; J Gray
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2007-02-23       Impact factor: 2.537

Review 5.  How risk is perceived, constructed and interpreted by clients in clinical genetics, and the effects on decision making: systematic review.

Authors:  Stephanie Sivell; Glyn Elwyn; Clara L Gaff; Angus J Clarke; Rachel Iredale; Chris Shaw; Joanna Dundon; Hazel Thornton; Adrian Edwards
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2007-10-30       Impact factor: 2.537

6.  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

7.  Genetic testing for BRCA1: effects of a randomised study of knowledge provision on interest in testing and long term test uptake; implications for the NICE guidelines.

Authors:  Julia Hall; Susan Gray; Roger A'Hern; Susan Shanley; Maggie Watson; Kathryn Kash; Robert Croyle; Rosalind Eeles
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2008-08-05       Impact factor: 2.375

Review 8.  Communicating genetic risk information for common disorders in the era of genomic medicine.

Authors:  Denise M Lautenbach; Kurt D Christensen; Jeffrey A Sparks; Robert C Green
Journal:  Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet       Date:  2013       Impact factor: 8.929

9.  Association of cancer worry and perceived risk with doctor avoidance: an analysis of information avoidance in a nationally representative US sample.

Authors:  Alexander Persoskie; Rebecca A Ferrer; William M P Klein
Journal:  J Behav Med       Date:  2013-09-27

10.  Explaining Mendelian inheritance in genetic consultations: an IPR study of counselor and counselee experiences.

Authors:  Theodora Gale; Sara Pasalodos-Sanchez; Lauren Kerzin-Storrar; Georgina Hall; Rhona MacLeod
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2010-01-05       Impact factor: 2.537

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.