PURPOSE: To determine whether the provision of additional genetic counseling support could improve the uptake of genetic services by "at-risk" relatives of probands. METHODS: The Tasmanian Clinical Genetics Service implemented a specific counseling intervention to a cohort of patients who were diagnosed with a genetic condition with familial implications and compared this with a control cohort who had not experienced the specific counseling intervention. The study involved 150 family members in 19 different kindreds across the two cohorts. The principal outcome measure was the proportion of at-risk relatives who had made contact with the clinical genetics service within 2 years of the diagnosis in the index patient. RESULTS: The proportion of at-risk relatives who made contact with the genetics service was 61% in the intervention cohort compared with 36% in the control cohort (P = 0.01). After controlling for the gender of the at-risk relatives, relatives in the intervention cohort were 2.6 times more likely to make contact with the genetics service (P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: The provision of increased genetic counseling support significantly increased the proportion of at-risk relatives who made contact with the genetic service. This suggests that the communication of genetic information within families can be enhanced by the provision of increased genetic counseling support.
PURPOSE: To determine whether the provision of additional genetic counseling support could improve the uptake of genetic services by "at-risk" relatives of probands. METHODS: The Tasmanian Clinical Genetics Service implemented a specific counseling intervention to a cohort of patients who were diagnosed with a genetic condition with familial implications and compared this with a control cohort who had not experienced the specific counseling intervention. The study involved 150 family members in 19 different kindreds across the two cohorts. The principal outcome measure was the proportion of at-risk relatives who had made contact with the clinical genetics service within 2 years of the diagnosis in the index patient. RESULTS: The proportion of at-risk relatives who made contact with the genetics service was 61% in the intervention cohort compared with 36% in the control cohort (P = 0.01). After controlling for the gender of the at-risk relatives, relatives in the intervention cohort were 2.6 times more likely to make contact with the genetics service (P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: The provision of increased genetic counseling support significantly increased the proportion of at-risk relatives who made contact with the genetic service. This suggests that the communication of genetic information within families can be enhanced by the provision of increased genetic counseling support.
Authors: Fred H Menko; Jacqueline A Ter Stege; Lizet E van der Kolk; Kiki N Jeanson; Winnie Schats; Daoud Ait Moha; Eveline M A Bleiker Journal: Fam Cancer Date: 2019-01 Impact factor: 2.375
Authors: Fred H Menko; Cora M Aalfs; Lidewij Henneman; Yrrah Stol; Miranda Wijdenes; Ellen Otten; Marleen M J Ploegmakers; Johan Legemaate; Ellen M A Smets; Guido M W R de Wert; Aad Tibben Journal: Fam Cancer Date: 2013-06 Impact factor: 2.375
Authors: Alison L Young; Phyllis N Butow; Janine Vetsch; Veronica F Quinn; Andrea F Patenaude; Katherine M Tucker; Claire E Wakefield Journal: J Genet Couns Date: 2017-06-30 Impact factor: 2.537
Authors: Lynley J Donoghue; Margaret A Sahhar; Ravi Savarirayan; Supriya Raj; Nicky M Kilpatrick; Laura E Forrest Journal: J Community Genet Date: 2014-02-06