G Joseph1, C Kaplan, J Luce, R Lee, S Stewart, C Guerra, R Pasick. 1. Departments of Anthropology, History and Social Medicine, University of California-San Francisco, 1450 3rd Street, San Francisco, CA 94158, USA. gjoseph@cc.ucsf.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Identification of low-income women with the rare but serious risk of hereditary cancer and their referral to appropriate services presents an important public health challenge. We report the results of formative research to reach thousands of women for efficient identification of those at high risk and expedient access to free genetic services. External validity is maximized by emphasizing intervention fit with the two end-user organizations who must connect to make this possible. This study phase informed the design of a subsequent randomized controlled trial. METHODS: We conducted a randomized controlled pilot study (n = 38) to compare two intervention models for feasibility and impact. The main outcome was receipt of genetic counseling during a two-month intervention period. Model 1 was based on the usual outcall protocol of an academic hospital genetic risk program, and Model 2 drew on the screening and referral procedures of a statewide toll-free phone line through which large numbers of high-risk women can be identified. In Model 1, the risk program proactively calls patients to schedule genetic counseling; for Model 2, women are notified of their eligibility for counseling and make the call themselves. We also developed and pretested a family history screener for administration by phone to identify women appropriate for genetic counseling. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference in receipt of genetic counseling between women randomized to Model 1 (3/18) compared with Model 2 (3/20) during the intervention period. However, when unresponsive women in Model 2 were called after 2 months, 7 more obtained counseling; 4 women from Model 1 were also counseled after the intervention. Thus, the intervention model that closely aligned with the risk program's outcall to high-risk women was found to be feasible and brought more low-income women to free genetic counseling. Our screener was easy to administer by phone and appeared to identify high-risk callers effectively. The model and screener are now in use in the main trial to test the effectiveness of this screening and referral intervention. A validation analysis of the screener is also underway. CONCLUSION: Identification of intervention strategies and tools, and their systematic comparison for impact and efficiency in the context where they will ultimately be used are critical elements of practice-based research.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Identification of low-income women with the rare but serious risk of hereditary cancer and their referral to appropriate services presents an important public health challenge. We report the results of formative research to reach thousands of women for efficient identification of those at high risk and expedient access to free genetic services. External validity is maximized by emphasizing intervention fit with the two end-user organizations who must connect to make this possible. This study phase informed the design of a subsequent randomized controlled trial. METHODS: We conducted a randomized controlled pilot study (n = 38) to compare two intervention models for feasibility and impact. The main outcome was receipt of genetic counseling during a two-month intervention period. Model 1 was based on the usual outcall protocol of an academic hospital genetic risk program, and Model 2 drew on the screening and referral procedures of a statewide toll-free phone line through which large numbers of high-risk women can be identified. In Model 1, the risk program proactively calls patients to schedule genetic counseling; for Model 2, women are notified of their eligibility for counseling and make the call themselves. We also developed and pretested a family history screener for administration by phone to identify women appropriate for genetic counseling. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference in receipt of genetic counseling between women randomized to Model 1 (3/18) compared with Model 2 (3/20) during the intervention period. However, when unresponsive women in Model 2 were called after 2 months, 7 more obtained counseling; 4 women from Model 1 were also counseled after the intervention. Thus, the intervention model that closely aligned with the risk program's outcall to high-risk women was found to be feasible and brought more low-income women to free genetic counseling. Our screener was easy to administer by phone and appeared to identify high-risk callers effectively. The model and screener are now in use in the main trial to test the effectiveness of this screening and referral intervention. A validation analysis of the screener is also underway. CONCLUSION: Identification of intervention strategies and tools, and their systematic comparison for impact and efficiency in the context where they will ultimately be used are critical elements of practice-based research.
Authors: Jeremiah Mock; Stephen J McPhee; Thoa Nguyen; Ching Wong; Hiep Doan; Ky Q Lai; Kim H Nguyen; Tung T Nguyen; Ngoc Bui-Tong Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2007-02-28 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Christina M Robinson; Michael L Beach; Mary Ann Greene; Andrea Cassells; Jonathan N Tobin; Allen J Dietrich Journal: J Ambul Care Manage Date: 2010 Apr-Jun
Authors: P Teller; K F Hoskins; A Zwaagstra; C Stanislaw; R Iyengar; V L Green; S G A Gabram Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2009-09-18 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Galen Joseph; Kim Nguyen; Tung Nguyen; Susan Stewart; Sharon Davis; Sebastian Kevany; Titas Marquez; Rena Pasick Journal: J Health Care Poor Underserved Date: 2013-11
Authors: Thomas B Silverman; Gilad J Kuperman; Alejandro Vanegas; Margaret Sin; Jill Dimond; Katherine D Crew; Rita Kukafka Journal: AMIA Annu Symp Proc Date: 2018-12-05
Authors: Christina D Williams; Alyssa Jasmine Bullard; Meghan O'Leary; Reana Thomas; Thomas S Redding; Karen Goldstein Journal: J Racial Ethn Health Disparities Date: 2019-04-08
Authors: Margaret Sin; Julia E McGuinness; Meghna S Trivedi; Alejandro Vanegas; Thomas B Silverman; Katherine D Crew; Rita Kukafka Journal: AMIA Annu Symp Proc Date: 2018-12-05
Authors: Meghna S Trivedi; Hilary Colbeth; Haeseung Yi; Alejandro Vanegas; Rebecca Starck; Wendy K Chung; Paul S Appelbaum; Rita Kukafka; Isaac Schechter; Katherine D Crew Journal: Public Health Genomics Date: 2019-06-04 Impact factor: 2.000
Authors: Julia E McGuinness; Meghna S Trivedi; Thomas Silverman; Awilda Marte; Jennie Mata; Rita Kukafka; Katherine D Crew Journal: Cancer Genet Date: 2019-04-24
Authors: Julia E McGuinness; William Ueng; Meghna S Trivedi; Hae Seung Yi; Raven David; Alejandro Vanegas; Jennifer Vargas; Rossy Sandoval; Rita Kukafka; Katherine D Crew Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2018-01-30 Impact factor: 4.254