INTRODUCTION: Patient preferences are central to the economic appraisal of health services. Cancer genetic services are relatively new, and little is known about clients' preferences. We sought to determine clients' preferences for genetic service delivery, and to identify factors that predict those preferences. METHODS: We studied female participants in the Australian Jewish Breast Cancer Study who were offered a test for ancestral mutations in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. Questionnaires, asking respondents to rank their preferences for functions, or attributes, of genetic counselling were received from 256 women (76% response rate). RESULTS: Sixty-two per cent of the respondents gave their highest preference for information on cancer and genetic risk; 19% gave it to breast and ovarian cancer surveillance; 14% gave it to preparation for testing; and, 5% gave it to direction with decision making. Most ranked direction as their least preferred attribute (53%). Women with a strong cancer family history were less likely to give highest preference to information (52%) and more likely to give highest preference to preparation for testing (22%) (P=0.04; 0.01, respectively). Women with a university degree were less likely to give highest preference to surveillance (15%) (P=0.04). CONCLUSION: Most women offered testing had highest preference for information and lowest preference for direction. We have identified factors that predict highest preference for information, preparation, and surveillance attributes. Understanding preferences and their predictors may assist cancer genetic services to provide clients with greater benefits from counselling.
INTRODUCTION:Patient preferences are central to the economic appraisal of health services. Cancer genetic services are relatively new, and little is known about clients' preferences. We sought to determine clients' preferences for genetic service delivery, and to identify factors that predict those preferences. METHODS: We studied female participants in the Australian Jewish Breast Cancer Study who were offered a test for ancestral mutations in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. Questionnaires, asking respondents to rank their preferences for functions, or attributes, of genetic counselling were received from 256 women (76% response rate). RESULTS: Sixty-two per cent of the respondents gave their highest preference for information on cancer and genetic risk; 19% gave it to breast and ovarian cancer surveillance; 14% gave it to preparation for testing; and, 5% gave it to direction with decision making. Most ranked direction as their least preferred attribute (53%). Women with a strong cancer family history were less likely to give highest preference to information (52%) and more likely to give highest preference to preparation for testing (22%) (P=0.04; 0.01, respectively). Women with a university degree were less likely to give highest preference to surveillance (15%) (P=0.04). CONCLUSION: Most women offered testing had highest preference for information and lowest preference for direction. We have identified factors that predict highest preference for information, preparation, and surveillance attributes. Understanding preferences and their predictors may assist cancer genetic services to provide clients with greater benefits from counselling.
Authors: J M Satagopan; K Offit; W Foulkes; M E Robson; S Wacholder; C M Eng; S E Karp; C B Begg Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2001-05 Impact factor: 4.254
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
Authors: K Brain; J Gray; P Norman; E France; C Anglim; G Barton; E Parsons; A Clarke; H Sweetland; M Tischkowitz; J Myring; K Stansfield; D Webster; K Gower-Thomas; R Daoud; C Gateley; I Monypenny; H Singhal; L Branston; J Sampson; E Roberts; R Newcombe; D Cohen; C Rogers; R Mansel; P Harper Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2000-08-16 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: J A Thompson; G L Wiesner; T A Sellers; C Vachon; M Ahrens; J D Potter; M Sumpmann; J Kersey Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 1995-10-04 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: M C Southey; A A Tesoriero; C R Andersen; K M Jennings; S M Brown; G S Dite; M A Jenkins; R H Osborne; J A Maskiell; L Porter; G G Giles; M R McCredie; J L Hopper; D J Venter Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 1999-01 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: S Holloway; M Porteous; R Cetnarskyj; E Anderson; R Rush; A Fry; D Gorman; M Steel; H Campbell Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2004-02-09 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Susan L Neuhausen; Hilmi Ozcelik; Melissa C Southey; Esther M John; Andrew K Godwin; Wendy Chung; Jeniffer Iriondo-Perez; Alexander Miron; Regina M Santella; Alice Whittemore; Irene L Andrulis; Saundra S Buys; Mary B Daly; John L Hopper; Daniela Seminara; Ruby T Senie; Mary Beth Terry Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2008-08-14 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Simone Salemink; Nicky Dekker; Carolien M Kets; Erica van der Looij; Wendy A G van Zelst-Stams; Nicoline Hoogerbrugge Journal: J Genet Couns Date: 2012-08-23 Impact factor: 2.537