Literature DB >> 15280342

Effect of a computer-based decision aid on knowledge, perceptions, and intentions about genetic testing for breast cancer susceptibility: a randomized controlled trial.

Michael J Green1, Susan K Peterson, Maria Wagner Baker, Gregory R Harper, Lois C Friedman, Wendy S Rubinstein, David T Mauger.   

Abstract

CONTEXT: As the availability of and demand for genetic testing for hereditary cancers increases in primary care and other clinical settings, alternative or adjunct educational methods to traditional genetic counseling will be needed.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of a computer-based decision aid with standard genetic counseling for educating women about BRCA1 and BRCA2 genetic testing.
DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial conducted from May 2000 to September 2002. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Outpatient clinics offering cancer genetic counseling at 6 US medical centers enrolled 211 women with personal or family histories of breast cancer.
INTERVENTIONS: Standard one-on-one genetic counseling (n = 105) or education by a computer program followed by genetic counseling (n = 106). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Participants' knowledge, risk perception, intention to undergo genetic testing, decisional conflict, satisfaction with decision, anxiety, and satisfaction with the intervention. Counselor group measures were administered at baseline and after counseling. Computer group measures were administered at baseline, after computer use, and after counseling. Testing decisions were assessed at 1 and 6 months. Outcomes were analyzed by high vs low risk of carrying a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation.
RESULTS: Both groups had comparable demographics, prior computer experience, medical literacy, and baseline knowledge of breast cancer and genetic testing, and both counseling and computer use were rated highly. Knowledge scores increased in both groups (P<.001) regardless of risk status, and change in knowledge was greater in the computer group compared with the counselor group (P =.03) among women at low risk of carrying a mutation. Perception of absolute risk of breast cancer decreased significantly after either intervention among all participants. Intention to undergo testing decreased significantly after either intervention among low-risk but not high-risk women. The counselor group had lower mean scores on a decisional conflict scale (P =.04) and, in low-risk women, higher mean scores on a satisfaction-with-decision scale (P =.001). Mean state anxiety scores were reduced by counseling but were within normal ranges for both groups at baseline and after either intervention, regardless of risk status.
CONCLUSIONS: An interactive computer program was more effective than standard genetic counseling for increasing knowledge of breast cancer and genetic testing among women at low risk of carrying a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. However, genetic counseling was more effective than the computer at reducing women's anxiety and facilitating more accurate risk perceptions. These results suggest that this computer program has the potential to stand alone as an educational intervention for low-risk women but should be used as a supplement to genetic counseling for those at high risk.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15280342      PMCID: PMC1237120          DOI: 10.1001/jama.292.4.442

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA        ISSN: 0098-7484            Impact factor:   56.272


  48 in total

1.  Primary care physicians' attitudes and practices regarding cancer genetics: a comparison of 2001 with 1996 survey results.

Authors:  Lois C Friedman; H Paul Cooper; John A Webb; Armin D Weinberg; Sharon E Plon
Journal:  J Cancer Educ       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 2.037

Review 2.  Genetic testing for susceptibility to adult-onset cancer. The process and content of informed consent.

Authors:  G Geller; J R Botkin; M J Green; N Press; B B Biesecker; B Wilfond; G Grana; M B Daly; K Schneider; M J Kahn
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1997-05-14       Impact factor: 56.272

3.  Impact of BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation testing on psychologic distress in a clinic-based sample.

Authors:  Marc D Schwartz; Beth N Peshkin; Chanita Hughes; David Main; Claudine Isaacs; Caryn Lerman
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2002-01-15       Impact factor: 44.544

4.  An interactive computer program can effectively educate patients about genetic testing for breast cancer susceptibility.

Authors:  M J Green; B B Biesecker; A M McInerney; D Mauger; N Fost
Journal:  Am J Med Genet       Date:  2001-09-15

5.  Education about genetic testing for breast cancer susceptibility: patient preferences for a computer program or genetic counselor.

Authors:  M J Green; A M McInerney; B B Biesecker; N Fost
Journal:  Am J Med Genet       Date:  2001-09-15

6.  Controlled trial of pretest education approaches to enhance informed decision-making for BRCA1 gene testing.

Authors:  C Lerman; B Biesecker; J L Benkendorf; J Kerner; A Gomez-Caminero; C Hughes; M M Reed
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1997-01-15       Impact factor: 13.506

7.  Primary care physicians' knowledge and attitudes towards genetic testing for breast-ovarian cancer predisposition.

Authors:  M Escher; A P Sappino
Journal:  Ann Oncol       Date:  2000-09       Impact factor: 32.976

Review 8.  Genetic testing.

Authors:  G M Petersen
Journal:  Hematol Oncol Clin North Am       Date:  2000-08       Impact factor: 3.722

Review 9.  Who should provide genetic education prior to gene testing? Computers and other methods for improving patient understanding.

Authors:  M J Green; N Fost
Journal:  Genet Test       Date:  1997

10.  American Society of Clinical Oncology policy statement update: genetic testing for cancer susceptibility.

Authors: 
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2003-04-11       Impact factor: 44.544

View more
  111 in total

1.  Genetic testing and counseling for hereditary neurological diseases in Mali.

Authors:  Katherine Gloria Meilleur; Souleymane Coulibaly; Moussa Traoré; Guida Landouré; Alison La Pean; Modibo Sangaré; Fanny Mochel; Siona Traoré; Kenneth H Fischbeck; Hae-Ra Han
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2011-02-22

Review 2.  How to establish a high-risk cancer genetics clinic: limitations and successes.

Authors:  Mary B Daly; Beth Stearman; Agnes Masny; Elaine Sein; Susan Mazzoni
Journal:  Curr Oncol Rep       Date:  2005-11       Impact factor: 5.075

3.  Longitudinal changes in patient distress following interactive decision aid use among BRCA1/2 carriers: a randomized trial.

Authors:  Gillian W Hooker; Kara-Grace Leventhal; Tiffani DeMarco; Beth N Peshkin; Clinton Finch; Erica Wahl; Jessica Rispoli Joines; Karen Brown; Heiddis Valdimarsdottir; Marc D Schwartz
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2010-09-27       Impact factor: 2.583

4.  An exploration of the communication preferences regarding genetic testing in individuals from families with identified breast/ovarian cancer mutations.

Authors:  Paboda Ratnayake; Claire E Wakefield; Bettina Meiser; Graeme Suthers; Melanie A Price; Jessica Duffy; Kathy Tucker
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 2.375

5.  A randomized noninferiority trial of condensed protocols for genetic risk disclosure of Alzheimer's disease.

Authors:  Robert C Green; Kurt D Christensen; L Adrienne Cupples; Norman R Relkin; Peter J Whitehouse; Charmaine D M Royal; Thomas O Obisesan; Robert Cook-Deegan; Erin Linnenbringer; Melissa Barber Butson; Grace-Ann Fasaye; Elana Levinson; J Scott Roberts
Journal:  Alzheimers Dement       Date:  2014-12-09       Impact factor: 21.566

6.  Parent and public interest in whole-genome sequencing.

Authors:  Daniel S Dodson; Aaron J Goldenberg; Matthew M Davis; Dianne C Singer; Beth A Tarini
Journal:  Public Health Genomics       Date:  2015-03-06       Impact factor: 2.000

Review 7.  Interventions to improve patient education regarding multifactorial genetic conditions: a systematic review.

Authors:  Katherine G Meilleur; Marguerite T Littleton-Kearney
Journal:  Am J Med Genet A       Date:  2009-02-15       Impact factor: 2.802

8.  Too many referrals of low-risk women for BRCA1/2 genetic services by family physicians.

Authors:  Della Brown White; Vence L Bonham; Jean Jenkins; Nancy Stevens; Colleen M McBride
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 4.254

9.  Cancer genetics service interest in women with a limited family history of breast cancer.

Authors:  Tamara J Somers; Julie C Michael; William M P Klein; Andrew Baum
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2009-05-14       Impact factor: 2.537

10.  Development of E-info gene(ca): a website providing computer-tailored information and question prompt prior to breast cancer genetic counseling.

Authors:  Akke Albada; Sandra van Dulmen; Roel Otten; Jozien M Bensing; Margreet G E M Ausems
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2009-05-14       Impact factor: 2.537

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.