BACKGROUND: Despite the potential benefits of genetic testing for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC) risk, individuals can find the genetic testing decision-making process complicated and challenging. The goal of the current study was to measure the effectiveness of a tailored decision aid designed specifically to assist individuals to make informed decisions regarding genetic testing for HNPCC risk. METHODS: In all, 153 individuals were randomized to receive the decision aid or a control pamphlet at the end of their first genetic counseling consultation. Of these, 109 (71.2%) completed the first questionnaire 1 week after consultation, whereas 95 (62.1%) completed the 6-month follow-up questionnaire. RESULTS: Although the decision aid had no significant effect on postdecisional regret or actual genetic testing decision, the trial results demonstrated that participants who received the decision aid had significantly lower levels of decisional conflict (ie, uncertainty) regarding genetic testing (chi-square(1) = 8.97; P = .003) and were more likely to be classified as having made an informed choice concerning genetic testing (chi-square(1) = 4.37; P = .037) than participants who received a control pamphlet. Also, men who received the decision aid had significantly higher knowledge levels regarding genetic testing compared with men who received the control pamphlet, whereas no such differences were found for women (chi-square(2) = 6.76; P = .034). CONCLUSIONS: A decision aid for individuals considering genetic testing for HNPCC is an effective intervention to reduce uncertainty and assist individuals to make an informed choice regarding genetic testing for HNPCC after genetic counseling. (c) 2008 American Cancer Society.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Despite the potential benefits of genetic testing for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC) risk, individuals can find the genetic testing decision-making process complicated and challenging. The goal of the current study was to measure the effectiveness of a tailored decision aid designed specifically to assist individuals to make informed decisions regarding genetic testing for HNPCC risk. METHODS: In all, 153 individuals were randomized to receive the decision aid or a control pamphlet at the end of their first genetic counseling consultation. Of these, 109 (71.2%) completed the first questionnaire 1 week after consultation, whereas 95 (62.1%) completed the 6-month follow-up questionnaire. RESULTS: Although the decision aid had no significant effect on postdecisional regret or actual genetic testing decision, the trial results demonstrated that participants who received the decision aid had significantly lower levels of decisional conflict (ie, uncertainty) regarding genetic testing (chi-square(1) = 8.97; P = .003) and were more likely to be classified as having made an informed choice concerning genetic testing (chi-square(1) = 4.37; P = .037) than participants who received a control pamphlet. Also, men who received the decision aid had significantly higher knowledge levels regarding genetic testing compared with men who received the control pamphlet, whereas no such differences were found for women (chi-square(2) = 6.76; P = .034). CONCLUSIONS: A decision aid for individuals considering genetic testing for HNPCC is an effective intervention to reduce uncertainty and assist individuals to make an informed choice regarding genetic testing for HNPCC after genetic counseling. (c) 2008 American Cancer Society.
Authors: Sharon L Manne; Neal J Meropol; David S Weinberg; Hetal Vig; Zohra Ali-Khan Catts; Cheri Manning; Eric Ross; Kristen Shannon; Daniel C Chung Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-02-08 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Julia J van Tol-Geerdink; Jan Willem H Leer; Carl J Wijburg; Inge M van Oort; Henk Vergunst; Emile J van Lin; J Alfred Witjes; Peep F M Stalmeier Journal: Health Expect Date: 2015-05-03 Impact factor: 3.377
Authors: Donna L Berry; Barbara Halpenny; Fangxin Hong; Seth Wolpin; William B Lober; Kenneth J Russell; William J Ellis; Usha Govindarajulu; Jaclyn Bosco; B Joyce Davison; Gerald Bennett; Martha K Terris; Andrea Barsevick; Daniel W Lin; Claire C Yang; Greg Swanson Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2011-12-07 Impact factor: 3.498
Authors: Anita Y Kinney; Karin M Butler; Marc D Schwartz; Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Kenneth M Boucher; Lisa M Pappas; Amanda Gammon; Wendy Kohlmann; Sandra L Edwards; Antoinette M Stroup; Saundra S Buys; Kristina G Flores; Rebecca A Campo Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2014-11-05 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Christina G S Palmer; Ariadna Martinez; Michelle Fox; Jin Zhou; Nina Shapiro; Yvonne Sininger; Wayne W Grody; Lisa A Schimmenti Journal: Am J Med Genet A Date: 2009-06 Impact factor: 2.802
Authors: Alice G Ames; Alice Jaques; Obioha C Ukoumunne; Alison D Archibald; Rony E Duncan; Jon Emery; Sylvia A Metcalfe Journal: Health Expect Date: 2012-10-15 Impact factor: 3.377
Authors: Sinara M O Leite; Karina B Gomes; Victor C Pardini; Alessandro C S Ferreira; Vanessa C Oliveira; Geraldo M G Cruz Journal: Mol Biol Rep Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 2.316