Literature DB >> 21875844

Differences between women who pursued genetic testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer and their at-risk relatives who did not.

Maria C Katapodi1, Laurel Northouse, Penny Pierce, Kara J Milliron, Guipeng Liu, Sofia D Merajver.   

Abstract

PURPOSE/
OBJECTIVES: To (a) examine differences in appraisals of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC), psychological distress, family environment, and decisional conflict between women who pursued genetic testing and their at-risk relatives who did not, and (b) examine correlations among appraisals of HBOC, psychological distress, family environment, and decisional conflict regarding genetic testing in these two cohorts of women.
DESIGN: Descriptive, cross-sectional cohort study.
SETTING: Two clinics affiliated with a major research university in the midwestern United States. SAMPLE: 372 women aged 18 years and older. 200 pursued genetic testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations (probands) and 172 of their female relatives who had a greater than 10% prior probability of being a mutation carrier but had not pursued testing.
METHODS: After providing informed consent, probands and relatives were mailed self-administered questionnaires. MAIN RESEARCH VARIABLES: Perceived risk, knowledge of HBOC risk factors and modes of gene inheritance, perceived severity, perceived controllability, psychological distress, family relationships, family communication, and decisional conflict about genetic testing.
FINDINGS: T tests revealed that probands perceived higher risk and had more psychological distress associated with breast cancer. Probands had more knowledge regarding risk factors and gene inheritance, and greater decisional conflict regarding genetic testing. Relatives reported higher perceived severity and controllability. No differences were observed in family relationships and family communication between probands and relatives. Pearson correlations revealed different patterns in knowledge, perceived controllability, family relationships, and decisional conflict between probands and relatives.
CONCLUSIONS: Significant differences exist between women who pursue genetic testing and those who do not. The family environment influences adjustment to HBOC and decisions about genetic testing. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING: Enhancing the family communication process about HBOC can provide informational and emotional support to high-risk women and promote decision making about genetic testing.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21875844     DOI: 10.1188/11.ONF.572-581

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Oncol Nurs Forum        ISSN: 0190-535X            Impact factor:   2.172


  7 in total

1.  Concerns about unintended negative consequences of informing the public about multifactorial risks may be premature for young adult smokers.

Authors:  Erika A Waters; Caroline Kincaid; Annette R Kaufman; Michelle L Stock; Laurel M Peterson; Nicole L Muscanell; Rosanna E Guadagno
Journal:  Br J Health Psychol       Date:  2013-10-01

2.  Should pretest genetic counselling be required for patients pursuing genomic sequencing? Results from a survey of participants in a large genomic implementation study.

Authors:  Joel E Pacyna; Carmen Radecki Breitkopf; Sarah M Jenkins; Erica J Sutton; Caroline Horrow; Iftikhar J Kullo; Richard R Sharp
Journal:  J Med Genet       Date:  2018-12-22       Impact factor: 6.318

3.  Psychometric testing of the decisional conflict scale: genetic testing hereditary breast and ovarian cancer.

Authors:  Maria C Katapodi; Michelle L Munro; Penny F Pierce; Reg A Williams
Journal:  Nurs Res       Date:  2011 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 2.381

4.  Levels and associations among self-esteem, fertility distress, coping, and reaction to potentially being a genetic carrier in women with diminished ovarian reserve.

Authors:  Ceylan Cizmeli; Marci Lobel; Jason Franasiak; Lisa M Pastore
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2013-03-15       Impact factor: 7.329

5.  Outcomes of genetic evaluation for hereditary cancer syndromes in unaffected individuals.

Authors:  Shanna L Gustafson; Victoria M Raymond; Monica L Marvin; Tobias Else; Erika Koeppe; Elena M Stoffel; Jessica N Everett
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2015-03       Impact factor: 2.375

6.  Genetic Testing Consumers in Italy: A Preliminary Investigation of the Socio-Demographic Profile, Health-Related Habits, and Decision Purposes.

Authors:  Serena Oliveri; Giulia Marton; Laura Vergani; Ilaria Cutica; Alessandra Gorini; Francesca Spinella; Gabriella Pravettoni
Journal:  Front Public Health       Date:  2020-10-08

7.  Using a state cancer registry to recruit young breast cancer survivors and high-risk relatives: protocol of a randomized trial testing the efficacy of a targeted versus a tailored intervention to increase breast cancer screening.

Authors:  Maria C Katapodi; Laurel L Northouse; Ann M Schafenacker; Debra Duquette; Sonia A Duffy; David L Ronis; Beth Anderson; Nancy K Janz; Jennifer McLosky; Kara J Milliron; Sofia D Merajver; Linh M Duong; Glenn Copeland
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2013-03-01       Impact factor: 4.430

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.