Literature DB >> 16736286

Determinants of preferences for genetic counselling in Jewish women.

Carmel Apicella1, Stuart J Peacock, Lesley Andrews, Katherine Tucker, Agnes Bankier, Mary B Daly, John L Hopper.   

Abstract

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16736286     DOI: 10.1007/s10689-005-3871-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Fam Cancer        ISSN: 1389-9600            Impact factor:   2.375


  30 in total

1.  The lifetime risks of breast cancer in Ashkenazi Jewish carriers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations.

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

2.  Genetic counselling: information given, recall and satisfaction.

Authors:  S Michie; V McDonald; T M Marteau
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  1997 Sep-Oct

3.  Economics of coronary artery bypass grafting.

Authors:  A Williams
Journal:  Br Med J (Clin Res Ed)       Date:  1985-08-03

4.  Patient satisfaction with quality of care in a hospital system in Qatar.

Authors:  S A McGivern
Journal:  J Healthc Qual       Date:  1999 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 1.095

5.  Economic evaluation of neonatal intensive care of very-low-birth-weight infants.

Authors:  M H Boyle; G W Torrance; J C Sinclair; S P Horwood
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1983-06-02       Impact factor: 91.245

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.  Randomized trial of a specialist genetic assessment service for familial breast cancer.

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

8.  Genetic services for familial cancer patients: a survey of National Cancer Institute cancer centers.

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

9.  BRCA1 mutations and other sequence variants in a population-based sample of Australian women with breast cancer.

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

10.  Patient satisfaction with two different models of cancer genetic services in south-east Scotland.

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

View more
  5 in total

1.  Effects of a genetic counseling model on mothers of children with down syndrome: a Brazilian pilot study.

Authors:  Marcos Ricardo Datti Micheletto; Nelson Iguimar Valerio; Agnes Cristina Fett-Conte
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2013-06-23       Impact factor: 2.537

2.  BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers in the Breast Cancer Family Registry: an open resource for collaborative research.

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

3.  A discrete choice experiment of preferences for genetic counselling among Jewish women seeking cancer genetics services.

Authors:  S Peacock; C Apicella; L Andrews; K Tucker; A Bankier; M B Daly; J L Hopper
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2006-11-20       Impact factor: 7.640

4.  Focusing on patient needs and preferences may improve genetic counseling for colorectal cancer.

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

5.  Measuring, and identifying predictors of women's perceptions of three types of breast cancer risk: population risk, absolute risk and comparative risk.

Authors:  C Apicella; S J Peacock; L Andrews; K Tucker; M B Daly; J L Hopper
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2009-02-10       Impact factor: 7.640

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.