Literature DB >> 21885922

A counselee-oriented perspective on risk communication in genetic counseling: explaining the inaccuracy of the counselees' risk perception shortly after BRCA1/2 test result disclosure.

Joël Vos1, Anne M Stiggelbout, Jan Oosterwijk, Encarna Gomez-Garcia, Fred Menko, J Margriet Collee, Christi J van Asperen, Aad Tibben.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Genetic counseling may help counselees understand their genetic risk of developing breast/ovarian cancer. However, many studies have shown that their perception of their risks is inaccurate. Information-oriented variables often predicted the level of accuracy, focusing on specific processes of receiving and processing risks. We examined counselee-oriented predictors about how counselees embed cancer risks in their lives. These predictors reflect the personal meaning of genetic risks and are expected to explain/mediate the impact of genetic counseling on risk-perception-accuracy.
METHOD: We analyzed 248 questionnaires of a prospective study, filled in by probands with breast/ovarian cancer and pathogenic mutations, unclassified variants, or uninformative results (n = 30, 16, and 202, respectively). Mediation regression analyses were performed to examine whether counselee predictors mediated/explained the influence of information predictors on the accuracy. Information-oriented predictors regarded presentation format, communicated information, question format, education, pedigree information, cancer experience, and cognitive processes/heuristics. Counselee-oriented predictors regarded their self/personality, life/existence, and need for certainty about DNA test result, heredity, and cancer.
RESULTS: Both information-oriented and counselee-oriented variables significantly predicted the accuracy of the counselees' risk perception, with moderate to large effect sizes. Counselee-oriented variables completely mediated/explained the effects of information-oriented variables on the accuracy. DISCUSSION: Counselees seemed to transform objective cancer risks into personally relevant information. Only through this personal meaning of genetic information, information-oriented processes seemed to cause inaccurate perceptions. Genetic counselors are suggested to focus communication on these personal processes.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21885922     DOI: 10.1097/GIM.0b013e31821a36f9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Genet Med        ISSN: 1098-3600            Impact factor:   8.822


  7 in total

1.  Cancer patients' understandings of genetic variants of uncertain significance in clinical care.

Authors:  Yael Amano; Aviad Raz; Stefan Timmermans; Shiri Shkedi-Rafid
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2022-05-26

2.  Communicating with Daughters About Familial Risk of Breast Cancer: Individual, Family, and Provider Influences on Women's Knowledge of Cancer Risk.

Authors:  Lucy A Peipins; Juan L Rodriguez; Nikki A Hawkins; Ashwini Soman; Mary C White; M Elizabeth Hodgson; Lisa A DeRoo; Dale P Sandler
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2018-01-29       Impact factor: 2.681

3.  Cancer genetic counselor information needs for risk communication: a qualitative evaluation of interview transcripts.

Authors:  Casey Lynnette Overby; Wendy K Chung; George Hripcsak; Rita Kukafka
Journal:  J Pers Med       Date:  2013

Review 4.  Communication about genetic testing with breast and ovarian cancer patients: a scoping review.

Authors:  Chris Jacobs; Christine Patch; Susan Michie
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2018-12-20       Impact factor: 4.246

5.  What Causes Cancer in Women with a gBRCA Pathogenic Variant? Counselees' Causal Attributions and Associations with Perceived Control.

Authors:  Friederike Kendel; Katharina Klein; Stephen Schüürhuis; Laura Besch; Markus A Feufel; Dorothee Speiser
Journal:  Genes (Basel)       Date:  2022-08-06       Impact factor: 4.141

6.  Population-based genetic risk prediction and stratification for ovarian cancer: views from women at high risk.

Authors:  Belinda Rahman; Susanne F Meisel; Lindsay Fraser; Lucy Side; Sue Gessler; Jane Wardle; Anne Lanceley
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2015-03       Impact factor: 2.375

7.  Emotional impact on the results of BRCA1 and BRCA2 genetic test: an observational retrospective study.

Authors:  Sara Mella; Barbara Muzzatti; Riccardo Dolcetti; Maria Antonietta Annunziata
Journal:  Hered Cancer Clin Pract       Date:  2017-10-02       Impact factor: 2.857

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.