BACKGROUND: : Hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) syndrome is attributed mostly to mutations in the Breast Cancer 1 and Breast Cancer 2 genes (BRCA1/2). Mutation carriers of BRCA1/2 genes have significantly higher risk for developing breast cancer compared with the general population (55%-85% vs. 12%) and for developing ovarian cancer (20%-60% vs. 1.5%). The availability of genetic testing enables mutation carriers to make informed decisions about managing their cancer risk (e.g., risk-reducing surgery). However, uptake of testing for HBOC among high-risk individuals is low, indicating the need to better understand and measure the decisional conflict associated with this process. OBJECTIVE: : The aim of this study was to evaluate the reliability and validity of the modified Decisional Conflict Scale for use in decisions associated with genetic testing for HBOC. METHODS: : This cross-sectional cohort study, recruited women who pursued genetic testing for HBOC in two genetic risk assessment clinics affiliated with a large comprehensive cancer center and one of their female relatives who did not pursue testing. The final sample consisted of 342 women who completed all 16 items of the Decisional Conflict Scale. The psychometric properties of the scale were assessed using tests of reliability and validity, including face, content, construct, contrast, convergent, divergent, and predictive validity. RESULTS: : Factor analysis using principal axis factoring with oblimin rotation elicited a three-factor structure: (a) Lack of Knowledge About the Decision (α = .97), (b) Lack of Autonomy in Decision Making (α = .94), and (c) Lack of Confidence in Decision Making (α = .87). These factors explained 82% of the variance in decisional conflict about genetic testing. Cronbach's alpha coefficient was .96. DISCUSSION: : The instrument is an important tool for researchers and healthcare providers working with women at risk for HBOC who are deciding whether genetic testing is the right choice for them.
BACKGROUND: : Hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) syndrome is attributed mostly to mutations in the Breast Cancer 1 and Breast Cancer 2 genes (BRCA1/2). Mutation carriers of BRCA1/2 genes have significantly higher risk for developing breast cancer compared with the general population (55%-85% vs. 12%) and for developing ovarian cancer (20%-60% vs. 1.5%). The availability of genetic testing enables mutation carriers to make informed decisions about managing their cancer risk (e.g., risk-reducing surgery). However, uptake of testing for HBOC among high-risk individuals is low, indicating the need to better understand and measure the decisional conflict associated with this process. OBJECTIVE: : The aim of this study was to evaluate the reliability and validity of the modified Decisional Conflict Scale for use in decisions associated with genetic testing for HBOC. METHODS: : This cross-sectional cohort study, recruited women who pursued genetic testing for HBOC in two genetic risk assessment clinics affiliated with a large comprehensive cancer center and one of their female relatives who did not pursue testing. The final sample consisted of 342 women who completed all 16 items of the Decisional Conflict Scale. The psychometric properties of the scale were assessed using tests of reliability and validity, including face, content, construct, contrast, convergent, divergent, and predictive validity. RESULTS: : Factor analysis using principal axis factoring with oblimin rotation elicited a three-factor structure: (a) Lack of Knowledge About the Decision (α = .97), (b) Lack of Autonomy in Decision Making (α = .94), and (c) Lack of Confidence in Decision Making (α = .87). These factors explained 82% of the variance in decisional conflict about genetic testing. Cronbach's alpha coefficient was .96. DISCUSSION: : The instrument is an important tool for researchers and healthcare providers working with women at risk for HBOC who are deciding whether genetic testing is the right choice for them.
Authors: Maria C Katapodi; Laurel Northouse; Penny Pierce; Kara J Milliron; Guipeng Liu; Sofia D Merajver Journal: Oncol Nurs Forum Date: 2011-09 Impact factor: 2.172
Authors: Amy Finch; Mario Beiner; Jan Lubinski; Henry T Lynch; Pal Moller; Barry Rosen; Joan Murphy; Parviz Ghadirian; Eitan Friedman; William D Foulkes; Charmaine Kim-Sing; Teresa Wagner; Nadine Tung; Fergus Couch; Dominique Stoppa-Lyonnet; Peter Ainsworth; Mary Daly; Babara Pasini; Ruth Gershoni-Baruch; Charis Eng; Olufunmilayo I Olopade; Jane McLennan; Beth Karlan; Jeffrey Weitzel; Ping Sun; Steven A Narod Journal: JAMA Date: 2006-07-12 Impact factor: 56.272
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
Authors: Kelly A Metcalfe; Daphna Birenbaum-Carmeli; Jan Lubinski; Jacek Gronwald; Henry Lynch; Pal Moller; Parviz Ghadirian; William D Foulkes; Jan Klijn; Eitan Friedman; Charmaine Kim-Sing; Peter Ainsworth; Barry Rosen; Susan Domchek; Teresa Wagner; Nadine Tung; Siranoush Manoukian; Fergus Couch; Ping Sun; Steven A Narod Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2008-05-01 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Susan K Peterson; Rebecca D Pentz; Amie M Blanco; Patricia A Ward; Beatty G Watts; Salma K Marani; Leslie Colvin James; Louise C Strong Journal: Genet Med Date: 2006-04 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Margot J Metz; Marjolein A Veerbeek; Christina M van der Feltz-Cornelis; Edwin de Beurs; Aartjan T F Beekman Journal: Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol Date: 2017-12-06 Impact factor: 4.328
Authors: Wendy W T Lam; Marie Kwok; Qiuyan Liao; Miranda Chan; Amy Or; Ava Kwong; Dacita Suen; Richard Fielding Journal: Health Expect Date: 2012-11-21 Impact factor: 3.377
Authors: Maria C Katapodi; Valeria Viassolo; Maria Caiata-Zufferey; Christos Nikolaidis; Nicole Buerki; Karl Heinimann; Viola Heinzelmann-Schwarz; Olivia Pagani; Pierre O Chappuis; Rosmarie Bührer-Landolt; Rossella Graffeo; Henrik Csaba Horváth; Christian Kurzeder; Manuela Rabaglio; Michael Scharfe; Corinne Urech; Tobias E Erlanger; Nicole Probst-Hensch Journal: JMIR Res Protoc Date: 2017-09-20
Authors: David D Stenehjem; Trang Au; Amy M Sainski; Hillevi Bauer; Krystal Brown; Johnathan Lancaster; Vanessa Stevens; Diana I Brixner Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2018-03-07 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Maria C Katapodi; Miyeon Jung; Ann M Schafenacker; Kara J Milliron; Kari E Mendelsohn-Victor; Sofia D Merajver; Laurel L Northouse Journal: JMIR Cancer Date: 2018-04-13
Authors: Mary C Politi; Abigail R Barker; Kimberly A Kaphingst; Timothy McBride; Enbal Shacham; Carey S Kebodeaux Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2016-02-16 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Nirupa Jaya Raghunathan; Deborah Korenstein; Qing S Li; Emily S Tonorezos; Jun J Mao Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2018-10-02 Impact factor: 4.452