Literature DB >> 16427245

Results of a randomized study of telephone versus in-person breast cancer risk counseling.

Almut W Helmes1, Julie O Culver, Deborah J Bowen.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Women of all risk levels have reported high interest in obtaining genetic testing for breast cancer risk. Breast cancer risk counseling may help women to learn about their risk and appropriate options of testing. This study measured the effects of an intervention in-person and by telephone, compared to a control group.
METHODS: Participants were 340 women, recruited through a network of primary care physicians. They received a baseline questionnaire in the mail, were randomized to one of the three study arms, and completed a follow-up survey 3 months later.
RESULTS: Both types of counseling were very well received. The counseling decreased women's cancer worry, risk perceptions, and intentions to pursue genetic testing. There were similar effects for both in-person and telephone counseling.
CONCLUSION: Genetic counseling can be used to inform women at all risk levels about their breast cancer risk. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Breast cancer risk counseling can be done in-person and by telephone--thereby reaching women in remote areas.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16427245     DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2005.12.002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Patient Educ Couns        ISSN: 0738-3991


  39 in total

1.  The prospect of genome-guided preventive medicine: a need and opportunity for genetic counselors.

Authors:  Julianne M O'Daniel
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2010-05-04       Impact factor: 2.537

2.  Genetic counselor opinions of, and experiences with telephone communication of BRCA1/2 test results.

Authors:  A R Bradbury; L Patrick-Miller; D Fetzer; B Egleston; S A Cummings; A Forman; L Bealin; C Peterson; M Corbman; J O'Connell; M B Daly
Journal:  Clin Genet       Date:  2010-10-12       Impact factor: 4.438

3.  Predictive Genetic Testing and Alternatives to Face to Face Results Disclosure: A Retrospective Review of Patients Preference for Alternative Modes of BRCA 1 and 2 Results Disclosure in the Republic of Ireland.

Authors:  Rosie O'Shea; Marie Meany; Cliona Carroll; Nuala Cody; David Healy; Andrew Green; Sally Ann Lynch
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2015-09-26       Impact factor: 2.537

4.  Psychological factors associated with emotional responses to receiving genetic risk information.

Authors:  Paul Bennett; Clare Wilkinson; Jim Turner; Kate Brain; Rhiannon Tudor Edwards; Gethin Griffith; Barbara France; Jonathon Gray
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2008-02-08       Impact factor: 2.537

5.  Retrospective comparison of patient outcomes after in-person and telephone results disclosure counseling for BRCA1/2 genetic testing.

Authors:  Courtney Doughty Rice; Jennifer Gamm Ruschman; Lisa J Martin; Jennifer B Manders; Erin Miller
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 2.375

6.  A Comparison of Telephone Genetic Counseling and In-Person Genetic Counseling from the Genetic Counselor's Perspective.

Authors:  Kelly R Burgess; Erin P Carmany; Angela M Trepanier
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2015-06-06       Impact factor: 2.537

7.  Impact of a primary care based intervention on breast cancer knowledge, risk perception and concern: A randomized, controlled trial.

Authors:  Jennifer Livaudais-Toman; Leah S Karliner; Jeffrey A Tice; Karla Kerlikowske; Steven Gregorich; Eliseo J Pérez-Stable; Rena J Pasick; Alice Chen; Jessica Quinn; Celia P Kaplan
Journal:  Breast       Date:  2015-10-21       Impact factor: 4.380

Review 8.  Predictors of genetic testing decisions: a systematic review and critique of the literature.

Authors:  Kate Sweeny; Arezou Ghane; Angela M Legg; Ho Phi Huynh; Sara E Andrews
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2014-04-11       Impact factor: 2.537

Review 9.  Personalised risk communication for informed decision making about taking screening tests.

Authors:  Adrian G K Edwards; Gurudutt Naik; Harry Ahmed; Glyn J Elwyn; Timothy Pickles; Kerry Hood; Rebecca Playle
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2013-02-28

Review 10.  Anchoring-and-adjustment bias in communication of disease risk.

Authors:  Ibrahim Senay; Kimberly A Kaphingst
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2009-03-11       Impact factor: 2.583

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.