Literature DB >> 20876346

Longitudinal changes in patient distress following interactive decision aid use among BRCA1/2 carriers: a randomized trial.

Gillian W Hooker1, Kara-Grace Leventhal1, Tiffani DeMarco1, Beth N Peshkin1, Clinton Finch1, Erica Wahl2, Jessica Rispoli Joines3, Karen Brown4, Heiddis Valdimarsdottir5, Marc D Schwartz1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Increasingly, women with a strong family history of breast cancer are seeking genetic testing as a starting point to making significant decisions regarding management of their cancer risks. Individuals who are found to be carriers of a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation have a substantially elevated risk for breast cancer and are frequently faced with the decision of whether to undergo risk-reducing mastectomy.
OBJECTIVE: In order to provide BRCA1/2 carriers with ongoing decision support for breast cancer risk management, a computer-based interactive decision aid was developed and tested against usual care in a randomized controlled trial.
DESIGN: . Following genetic counseling, 214 female (aged 21-75 years) BRCA1/2 mutation carriers were randomized to usual care (UC; n = 114) or usual care plus decision aid (DA; n = 100) arms. UC participants received no further intervention; DA participants were sent the CD-ROM-based decision aid to view at home. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The authors measured general distress, cancer-specific distress, and genetic testing-specific distress at 1-, 6-, and 12-month follow-up time points postrandomization.
RESULTS: Longitudinal analyses revealed a significant longitudinal impact of the DA on cancer-specific distress (B = 5.67, z = 2.81, P = 0.005), which varied over time (DA group by time; B = -2.19, z = -2.47, P = 0.01), and on genetic testing-specific distress (B = 5.55, z = 2.46, P = 0.01), which also varied over time (DA group by time; B = -2.46, z = -2.51, P = 0.01). Individuals randomized to UC reported significantly decreased distress in the month following randomization, whereas individuals randomized to the DA maintained their postdisclosure distress over the short term. By 12 months, the overall decrease in distress between the 2 groups was similar.
CONCLUSION: This report provides new insight into the long-term longitudinal effects of DAs.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20876346      PMCID: PMC3935602          DOI: 10.1177/0272989X10381283

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Decis Making        ISSN: 0272-989X            Impact factor:   2.583


  34 in total

1.  Think, blink or sleep on it? The impact of modes of thought on complex decision making.

Authors:  Ben R Newell; Kwan Yao Wong; Jeremy C H Cheung; Tim Rakow
Journal:  Q J Exp Psychol (Hove)       Date:  2008-08-23       Impact factor: 2.143

Review 2.  Decision making and decision support for hereditary breast-ovarian cancer susceptibility.

Authors:  Marc D Schwartz; Beth N Peshkin; Kenneth P Tercyak; Kathryn L Taylor; Heiddis Valdimarsdottir
Journal:  Health Psychol       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 4.267

3.  A brief assessment of concerns associated with genetic testing for cancer: the Multidimensional Impact of Cancer Risk Assessment (MICRA) questionnaire.

Authors:  David Cella; Chanita Hughes; Amy Peterman; Chih-Hung Chang; Beth N Peshkin; Marc D Schwartz; Lari Wenzel; Amy Lemke; Alfred C Marcus; Caryn Lerman
Journal:  Health Psychol       Date:  2002-11       Impact factor: 4.267

4.  Decision support for patients with early-stage breast cancer: effects of an interactive breast cancer CDROM on treatment decision, satisfaction, and quality of life.

Authors:  S Molenaar; M A Sprangers; E J Rutgers; E J Luiten; J Mulder; P M Bossuyt; J J van Everdingen; P Oosterveld; H C de Haes
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2001-03-15       Impact factor: 44.544

5.  A randomized controlled trial of a decision aid for women at increased risk of ovarian cancer.

Authors:  K Tiller; B Meiser; C Gaff; J Kirk; T Dudding; K-A Phillips; M Friedlander; K Tucker
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2006 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 2.583

6.  Risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy in women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation.

Authors:  Noah D Kauff; Jaya M Satagopan; Mark E Robson; Lauren Scheuer; Martee Hensley; Clifford A Hudis; Nathan A Ellis; Jeff Boyd; Patrick I Borgen; Richard R Barakat; Larry Norton; Mercedes Castiel; Khedoudja Nafa; Kenneth Offit
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2002-05-20       Impact factor: 91.245

7.  Development and testing of a decision aid for breast cancer prevention for women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation.

Authors:  K A Metcalfe; A Poll; A O'Connor; S Gershman; S Armel; A Finch; R Demsky; B Rosen; S A Narod
Journal:  Clin Genet       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 4.438

Review 8.  Management updates for women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation.

Authors:  Rachel Nusbaum; Claudine Isaacs
Journal:  Mol Diagn Ther       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 4.074

9.  Toward the 'tipping point': decision aids and informed patient choice.

Authors:  Annette M O'Connor; John E Wennberg; France Legare; Hilary A Llewellyn-Thomas; Benjamin W Moulton; Karen R Sepucha; Andrea G Sodano; Jaime S King
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2007 May-Jun       Impact factor: 6.301

Review 10.  Are cancer-related decision aids effective? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Mary Ann O'Brien; Timothy J Whelan; Miguel Villasis-Keever; Amiram Gafni; Cathy Charles; Robin Roberts; Susan Schiff; Wenjie Cai
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2009-01-05       Impact factor: 44.544

View more
  23 in total

Review 1.  Clinical decision support for genetically guided personalized medicine: a systematic review.

Authors:  Brandon M Welch; Kensaku Kawamoto
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2012-08-25       Impact factor: 4.497

2.  Development and evaluation of a decision aid for BRCA carriers with breast cancer.

Authors:  Julie O Culver; Deborah J MacDonald; Andrea A Thornton; Sharon R Sand; Marcia Grant; Deborah J Bowen; Harry Burke; Nellie Garcia; Kelly A Metcalfe; Jeffrey N Weitzel
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2011-03-03       Impact factor: 2.537

3.  Long-term outcomes of BRCA1/BRCA2 testing: risk reduction and surveillance.

Authors:  Marc D Schwartz; Claudine Isaacs; Kristi D Graves; Elizabeth Poggi; Beth N Peshkin; Christy Gell; Clinton Finch; Scott Kelly; Kathryn L Taylor; Lauren Perley
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2011-06-29       Impact factor: 6.860

4.  Distress and the parenting dynamic among BRCA1/2 tested mothers and their partners.

Authors:  Darren Mays; Tiffani A DeMarco; George Luta; Beth N Peshkin; Andrea F Patenaude; Katherine A Schneider; Judy E Garber; Kenneth P Tercyak
Journal:  Health Psychol       Date:  2013-06-24       Impact factor: 4.267

5.  Decisional outcomes of maternal disclosure of BRCA1/2 genetic test results to children.

Authors:  Kenneth P Tercyak; Darren Mays; Tiffani A DeMarco; Beth N Peshkin; Heiddis B Valdimarsdottir; Katherine A Schneider; Judy E Garber; Andrea Farkas Patenaude
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2013-07       Impact factor: 4.254

Review 6.  A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials to Assess Outcomes of Genetic Counseling.

Authors:  Barbara A Athens; Samantha L Caldwell; Kendall L Umstead; Philip D Connors; Ethan Brenna; Barbara B Biesecker
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2017-03-02       Impact factor: 2.537

7.  Women's concerns about the emotional impact of awareness of heritable breast cancer risk and its implications for their children.

Authors:  Suzanne C O'Neill; Darren Mays; Andrea Farkas Patenaude; Judy E Garber; Tiffani A DeMarco; Beth N Peshkin; Katherine A Schneider; Kenneth P Tercyak
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2014-08-07

8.  Feasibility evaluation of an online tool to guide decisions for BRCA1/2 mutation carriers.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Schackmann; Diego F Munoz; Meredith A Mills; Sylvia K Plevritis; Allison W Kurian
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2013-03       Impact factor: 2.375

9.  Seeking balance: decision support needs of women without cancer and a deleterious BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation.

Authors:  Meghan L Underhill; Cheryl B Crotser
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2013-11-22       Impact factor: 2.537

10.  Engagement and communication among participants in the ClinSeq Genomic Sequencing Study.

Authors:  Gillian W Hooker; Kendall L Umstead; Katie L Lewis; Laura K Koehly; Leslie G Biesecker; Barbara B Biesecker
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2016-10-20       Impact factor: 8.822

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.