Literature DB >> 15908654

Randomized comparison of group versus individual genetic education and counseling for familial breast and/or ovarian cancer.

Kathleen A Calzone1, Sheila A Prindiville, Oxana Jourkiv, Jean Jenkins, Maria DeCarvalho, Dawn B Wallerstedt, David J Liewehr, Seth M Steinberg, Peter W Soballe, Stan Lipkowitz, Pamela Klein, Ilan R Kirsch.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: An efficient approach to education and counseling before BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation testing is necessary for effective utilization of testing in the community. Education and counseling, when delivered individually, are limited by a shortage of trained health care providers as well as by financial and time constraints. The purpose of this study was to determine whether pretest education and counseling for breast cancer genetics in a group setting is equivalent to that provided on an individual basis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: One hundred forty-two patients at high risk for harboring a BRCA mutation were randomly assigned to group or individual education and counseling sessions. Group education was followed by brief individual counseling. Knowledge and Impact of Events Scales (IES) were administered at baseline and after education and counseling and at 1 week and 3, 6, and 12 months. Satisfaction with education and counseling was measured at completion of the session. Preferred method of education and counseling was solicited at 3 months.
RESULTS: There was no difference in knowledge or IES scores between groups. When stratified by genetic test results, knowledge scores showed no difference. Regardless of group, post-test IES scores in patients with positive results were higher than patients with negative or uninformative results but returned to baseline by 12 months. Participants were equally satisfied with either method they were assigned. Significantly more time was spent per patient in individual sessions (1.25 hours) than in group education (0.74 hours).
CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that group education and counseling may confer similar benefits compared with traditional individual sessions. Additional investigation of this approach in larger numbers of patients is warranted.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15908654     DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2005.04.050

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Oncol        ISSN: 0732-183X            Impact factor:   44.544


  40 in total

1.  Increasing utilization of cancer genetic counseling services using a patient navigator model.

Authors:  Alanna Kulchak Rahm; Anna Sukhanova; Jennifer Ellis; Judy Mouchawar
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 2.537

2.  Delivery of Internet-based cancer genetic counselling services to patients' homes: a feasibility study.

Authors:  Neal J Meropol; Mary B Daly; Hetal S Vig; Frank J Manion; Sharon L Manne; Carla Mazar; Camara Murphy; Nicholas Solarino; Vadim Zubarev
Journal:  J Telemed Telecare       Date:  2010-11-19       Impact factor: 6.184

3.  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

Review 4.  Patient responses to genetic information: studies of patients with hereditary cancer syndromes identify issues for use of genetic testing in nephrology practice.

Authors:  Kimberly A Kaphingst; Colleen M McBride
Journal:  Semin Nephrol       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 5.299

5.  Examination of the Patient-Focused Impact of Cancer Telegenetics Among a Rural Population: Comparison with Traditional In-Person Services.

Authors:  Nan M Solomons; Amanda E Lamb; Frances L Lucas; Eileen F McDonald; Susan Miesfeldt
Journal:  Telemed J E Health       Date:  2017-07-21       Impact factor: 3.536

6.  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

7.  Cancer genetic risk assessment and referral patterns in primary care.

Authors:  Hetal S Vig; Joanne Armstrong; Brian L Egleston; Carla Mazar; Michele Toscano; Angela R Bradbury; Mary B Daly; Neal J Meropol
Journal:  Genet Test Mol Biomarkers       Date:  2009-12

Review 8.  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

9.  Hereditary breast and ovarian cancer: successful systematic implementation of a group approach to genetic counselling.

Authors:  Patrick R Benusiglio; Marina Di Maria; Leila Dorling; Anne Jouinot; Antoine Poli; Sophie Villebasse; Marine Le Mentec; Béatrice Claret; Diane Boinon; Olivier Caron
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2017-01       Impact factor: 2.375

10.  Identification of genetic counseling service delivery models in practice: a report from the NSGC Service Delivery Model Task Force.

Authors:  Stephanie A Cohen; Monica L Marvin; Bronson D Riley; Hetal S Vig; Julie A Rousseau; Shanna L Gustafson
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2013-04-25       Impact factor: 2.537

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.