UNLABELLED: The literature on risk perception in women from high-risk breast cancer families reveals persistent over-estimation of risk, even after counseling. In this study, a communication aid was designed to facilitate discussion of risk between clinical geneticists and genetic counselors and women from this high-risk population. METHOD: Stage 1. The aid was developed by an expert panel of clinical geneticists, genetic counselors, psychologists, an epidemiologist, an oncologist, linguists and a consumer. It was guided by the international literature on risk communication and a large multi-centre Australian study of risk communication. The 13 page full-color communication aid used varying formats of words, numbers, graphs and pie-charts to address (a) the woman's subjective risk; (b) the population risk of breast cancer; c) the risk of inherited breast cancer; (d) the cumulative risk for women with BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations; (e) family risk factors; (f) the woman's suitability for genetic testing; (h) screening and management recommendations, and (i) a re-assessment of the woman's subjective risk. Stage 2: A before-after pilot study of 38 women who were unaffected with breast cancer and were attending four Australian familial cancer clinics was undertaken. Baseline and follow-up questionnaires were completed by 27 women. Outcomes were compared to those observed in 107 similar women undergoing genetic counseling without the communication aid in 2001. RESULTS: The risk communication aid appears to be beneficial; breast cancer genetics knowledge improved in some areas and importantly, risk perceptions improved in the cohort receiving the communication aid. Psychological measures showed no difference in anxiety or depression between the group receiving the communication aid and the comparison cohort. Women and clinicians were very positive about the usefulness of the communication aid as an adjunct to the genetic counseling consultation.
UNLABELLED: The literature on risk perception in women from high-risk breast cancer families reveals persistent over-estimation of risk, even after counseling. In this study, a communication aid was designed to facilitate discussion of risk between clinical geneticists and genetic counselors and women from this high-risk population. METHOD: Stage 1. The aid was developed by an expert panel of clinical geneticists, genetic counselors, psychologists, an epidemiologist, an oncologist, linguists and a consumer. It was guided by the international literature on risk communication and a large multi-centre Australian study of risk communication. The 13 page full-color communication aid used varying formats of words, numbers, graphs and pie-charts to address (a) the woman's subjective risk; (b) the population risk of breast cancer; c) the risk of inherited breast cancer; (d) the cumulative risk for women with BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations; (e) family risk factors; (f) the woman's suitability for genetic testing; (h) screening and management recommendations, and (i) a re-assessment of the woman's subjective risk. Stage 2: A before-after pilot study of 38 women who were unaffected with breast cancer and were attending four Australian familial cancer clinics was undertaken. Baseline and follow-up questionnaires were completed by 27 women. Outcomes were compared to those observed in 107 similar women undergoing genetic counseling without the communication aid in 2001. RESULTS: The risk communication aid appears to be beneficial; breast cancer genetics knowledge improved in some areas and importantly, risk perceptions improved in the cohort receiving the communication aid. Psychological measures showed no difference in anxiety or depression between the group receiving the communication aid and the comparison cohort. Women and clinicians were very positive about the usefulness of the communication aid as an adjunct to the genetic counseling consultation.
Authors: Jeffrey R Botkin; Ken R Smith; Robert T Croyle; Bonnie J Baty; Jean E Wylie; Debra Dutson; Anna Chan; Heidi A Hamann; Caryn Lerman; Jamie McDonald; Vickie Venne; John H Ward; Elaine Lyon Journal: Am J Med Genet A Date: 2003-04-30 Impact factor: 2.802
Authors: C Lerman; C Hughes; R T Croyle; D Main; C Durham; C Snyder; A Bonney; J F Lynch; S A Narod; H T Lynch Journal: Prev Med Date: 2000-07 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: T R Rebbeck; A M Levin; A Eisen; C Snyder; P Watson; L Cannon-Albright; C Isaacs; O Olopade; J E Garber; A K Godwin; M B Daly; S A Narod; S L Neuhausen; H T Lynch; B L Weber Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 1999-09-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: E A Lobb; P N Butow; B Meiser; A Barratt; C Gaff; M A Young; J Kirk; G K Suthers; K Tucker Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2002-08-27 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Simone E De Morgan; Phyllis N Butow; Elizabeth A Lobb; Melanie A Price; Caroline Nehill Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2010-11-19 Impact factor: 3.603
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
Authors: June A Peters; Ellen B Beckjord; Deliya R Banda Ryan; Ann G Carr; Susan T Vadaparampil; Jennifer T Loud; Larissa Korde; Mark H Greene Journal: J Genet Couns Date: 2008-05-15 Impact factor: 2.537
Authors: Bettina Meiser; Melanie A Price; Phyllis N Butow; Belinda Rahman; Kathy Tucker; Benjamin Cheah; Adrian Bickerstaffe; John Hopper; Kelly-Anne Phillips Journal: Fam Cancer Date: 2014-06 Impact factor: 2.375
Authors: Bettina Meiser; Kathy Tucker; Michael Friedlander; Kristine Barlow-Stewart; Elizabeth Lobb; Christobel Saunders; Gillian Mitchell Journal: Breast Cancer Res Date: 2008-11-28 Impact factor: 6.466
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