Literature DB >> 21114486

Perceiving cancer-risks and heredity-likelihood in genetic-counseling: how counselees recall and interpret BRCA 1/2-test results.

J Vos1, J C Oosterwijk, E Gómez-García, F H Menko, A M Jansen, R D Stoel, C J van Asperen, A Tibben, A M Stiggelbout.   

Abstract

Previous studies on the counsellees' perception of DNA test results did not clarify whether counsellees were asked about their recollections or interpretations, and focused only on patients' own risks and not on the likelihood that cancer is heritable in the family. We tested differences and correlations of four perception aspects: recollections and interpretations of both cancer risks and heredity likelihood. In a retrospective study, women tested for BRCA1/2 on average, 5 years ago, completed questionnaires about their perception. Participants had received an unclassified variant (n = 76), uninformative (n = 76) or pathogenic mutation (n = 51) result in BRCA1/2. Analyses included t-tests, correlations and structural equation modelling. The counsellees' perception showed to consist of four distinctive phenomena: recollections and interpretations of cancer risks and of heredity likelihood. This distinctiveness was suggested by significant differences between these perception variables. Moderate to strong correlations were found between these variables, suggesting that these differences between variables were consistent. The relationships between these variables were not influenced by actually communicated DNA test results, sociodemographics, medical and pedigree information, or framing of cancer risk questions. The largest differences between recollections and interpretations were found in the unclassified variant group and the smallest in uninformatives. Cancer risks and heredity likelihood correlated least in the pathogenic mutation group. Communication of ambiguous genetic information enlarged the differences. To understand the counsellees' perception of genetic counselling, researchers should study recollections and interpretations of cancer risks and heredity likelihood. Genetic counsellors should explicitly address the counsellees' recollections and interpretations, and be aware of possible inaccuracies.
© 2010 John Wiley & Sons A/S.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 21114486     DOI: 10.1111/j.1399-0004.2010.01581.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Genet        ISSN: 0009-9163            Impact factor:   4.438


  13 in total

1.  "It's not like judgment day": public understanding of and reactions to personalized genomic risk information.

Authors:  Erynn S Gordon; Georgia Griffin; Lisa Wawak; Hauchie Pang; Sarah E Gollust; Barbara A Bernhardt
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2011-12-17       Impact factor: 2.537

2.  A Qualitative Study to Explore the Views and Attitudes towards Prenatal Testing in Adults Who Have Muenke Syndrome and their Partners.

Authors:  Julie Phipps; Heather Skirton
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2017-03-22       Impact factor: 2.537

3.  The Long and Short of Genetic Counseling Summary Letters: A Case-control Study.

Authors:  J Roggenbuck; R Temme; D Pond; J Baker; K Jarvis; M Liu; S Dugan; N J Mendelsohn
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2014-12-14       Impact factor: 2.537

Review 4.  Genetic risk assessments in individuals at high risk for inherited breast cancer in the breast oncology care setting.

Authors:  Tuya Pal; Susan T Vadaparampil
Journal:  Cancer Control       Date:  2012-10       Impact factor: 3.302

5.  Variants of uncertain significance in BRCA testing: evaluation of surgical decisions, risk perception, and cancer distress.

Authors:  J O Culver; C D Brinkerhoff; J Clague; K Yang; K E Singh; S R Sand; J N Weitzel
Journal:  Clin Genet       Date:  2013-02-20       Impact factor: 4.438

6.  Impact of delivery models on understanding genomic risk for type 2 diabetes.

Authors:  S B Haga; W T Barry; R Mills; L Svetkey; S Suchindran; H F Willard; G S Ginsburg
Journal:  Public Health Genomics       Date:  2014-02-27       Impact factor: 2.000

7.  Communication Between Breast Cancer Patients Who Received Inconclusive Genetic Test Results and Their Daughters and Sisters Years After Testing.

Authors:  Jessica E Baars; Margreet G E M Ausems; Els van Riel; Marijke C Kars; Eveline M A Bleiker
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2015-10-08       Impact factor: 2.537

8.  Next-Generation Testing for Cancer Risk: Perceptions, Experiences, and Needs Among Early Adopters in Community Healthcare Settings.

Authors:  Kathleen R Blazer; Bita Nehoray; Ilana Solomon; Mariana Niell-Swiller; Julie O Culver; Gwen C Uman; Jeffrey N Weitzel
Journal:  Genet Test Mol Biomarkers       Date:  2015-11-05

9.  Permanence of the information given during oncogenetic counseling to persons at familial risk of breast/ovarian and/or colon cancer.

Authors:  Fabrice Kwiatkowski; Pascal Dessenne; Claire Laquet; Marie-Françoise Petit; Yves-Jean Bignon
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2011-09-21       Impact factor: 4.246

10.  A cluster-randomised, parallel group, controlled intervention study of genetic prostate cancer risk assessment and use of PSA tests in general practice--the ProCaRis study: study protocol.

Authors:  Pia Kirkegaard; Peter Vedsted; Adrian Edwards; Morten Fenger-Grøn; Flemming Bro
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2013-03-01       Impact factor: 2.692

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.