Literature DB >> 22498844

Effectiveness of a condensed protocol for disclosing APOE genotype and providing risk education for Alzheimer disease.

J Scott Roberts1, Clara A Chen, Wendy R Uhlmann, Robert C Green.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Brief, effective models of patient genetic education are needed for common, complex diseases. Using Alzheimer disease as a model, we compared participants' risk knowledge and recall in extended versus condensed education protocols.
METHODS: A four-site randomized clinical trial enrolled 280 first-degree relatives of individuals with Alzheimer disease (mean age = 58 years, 71% female); each received lifetime Alzheimer disease risk information (range: 13-74%) that incorporated apolipoprotein E genotype. In the condensed protocol, participants received an educational brochure in place of an in-person education session. Outcomes were assessed at 6 weeks and 6 months following risk disclosure.
RESULTS: The condensed protocol required less clinician time than the extended protocol (mean = 34 min vs. 77 min). The groups did not differ on recall of apolipoprotein E genotype or lifetime risk, and most participants in both groups recalled and retained this information over time. Both groups showed improvement from baseline in Alzheimer disease risk knowledge (e.g., understanding the magnitude of apolipoprotein E genotype effect on risk).
CONCLUSION: A condensed protocol for communicating genetic risk for Alzheimer disease achieved similar educational results as an extended protocol in this study. Further research should explore the efficacy of brief genetic education protocols for complex diseases in diverse populations.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22498844      PMCID: PMC3718049          DOI: 10.1038/gim.2012.37

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


  28 in total

Review 1.  Risk communication strategies: state of the art and effectiveness in the context of cancer genetic services.

Authors:  Claire Julian-Reynier; Myriam Welkenhuysen; Lea Hagoel; Marleen Decruyenaere; Penelope Hopwood
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 4.246

2.  Estimating risk curves for first-degree relatives of patients with Alzheimer's disease: the REVEAL study.

Authors:  L Adrienne Cupples; Lindsay A Farrer; A Dessa Sadovnick; Norman Relkin; Peter Whitehouse; Robert C Green
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2004 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 8.822

Review 3.  Interventions for individuals with low health literacy: a systematic review.

Authors:  Stacey L Sheridan; David J Halpern; Anthony J Viera; Nancy D Berkman; Katrina E Donahue; Karen Crotty
Journal:  J Health Commun       Date:  2011

4.  Genes on the Web--direct-to-consumer marketing of genetic testing.

Authors:  Adam J Wolfberg
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2006-08-10       Impact factor: 91.245

5.  Genetic susceptibility testing versus family history-based risk assessment: Impact on perceived risk of Alzheimer disease.

Authors:  Susan LaRusse; J Scott Roberts; Theresa M Marteau; Heather Katzen; Erin L Linnenbringer; Melissa Barber; Peter Whitehouse; Kimberly Quaid; Tamsen Brown; Robert C Green; Norman R Relkin
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 8.822

6.  Randomized controlled trial of a psychosocial telephone counseling intervention in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers.

Authors:  Kristi D Graves; Lari Wenzel; Marc D Schwartz; George Luta; Paul Wileyto; Steven Narod; Beth N Peshkin; Alfred Marcus; David Cella; Susan Powell Emsbo; Denise Barnes; Chanita Hughes Halbert
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2010-03-03       Impact factor: 4.254

7.  Genetic counseling for BRCA1/2: a randomized controlled trial of two strategies to facilitate the education and counseling process.

Authors:  Catharine Wang; Richard Gonzalez; Kara J Milliron; Victor J Strecher; Sofia D Merajver
Journal:  Am J Med Genet A       Date:  2005-04-01       Impact factor: 2.802

8.  Putting science over supposition in the arena of personalized genomics.

Authors:  Colleen M McBride; Sharon Hensley Alford; Robert J Reid; Eric B Larson; Andreas D Baxevanis; Lawrence C Brody
Journal:  Nat Genet       Date:  2008-08       Impact factor: 38.330

9.  What is the impact of genetic counselling in women at increased risk of developing hereditary breast cancer? A meta-analytic review.

Authors:  Bettina Meiser; Jane L Halliday
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2002-05       Impact factor: 4.634

Review 10.  A systematic review of the impact of genetic counseling on risk perception accuracy.

Authors:  Chris M R Smerecnik; Ilse Mesters; Eline Verweij; Nanne K de Vries; Hein de Vries
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2009-03-17       Impact factor: 2.537

View more
  15 in total

Review 1.  Communicating genetic risk information for common disorders in the era of genomic medicine.

Authors:  Denise M Lautenbach; Kurt D Christensen; Jeffrey A Sparks; Robert C Green
Journal:  Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet       Date:  2013       Impact factor: 8.929

2.  Distinct communication patterns during genetic counseling for late-onset Alzheimer's risk assessment.

Authors:  Barbara Lerner; J Scott Roberts; Michael Shwartz; Debra L Roter; Robert C Green; Jack A Clark
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2013-11-05

Review 3.  A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials to Assess Outcomes of Genetic Counseling.

Authors:  Barbara A Athens; Samantha L Caldwell; Kendall L Umstead; Philip D Connors; Ethan Brenna; Barbara B Biesecker
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2017-03-02       Impact factor: 2.537

4.  Abandoning personalization to get to precision in the pharmacotherapy of depression.

Authors:  Roy H Perlis
Journal:  World Psychiatry       Date:  2016-10       Impact factor: 49.548

5.  Assessing the Psychological Impact of Genetic Susceptibility Testing.

Authors:  J Scott Roberts
Journal:  Hastings Cent Rep       Date:  2019-05       Impact factor: 2.683

6.  Implementation matters: How patient experiences differ when genetic counseling accompanies the return of genetic variants of uncertain significance.

Authors:  Harsh V Patel; Nora B Henrikson; James D Ralston; Kathleen Leppig; Aaron Scrol; Gail P Jarvik; Shannon DeVange; Eric B Larson; Andrea L Hartzler
Journal:  AMIA Annu Symp Proc       Date:  2022-02-21

7.  A randomized noninferiority trial of condensed protocols for genetic risk disclosure of Alzheimer's disease.

Authors:  Robert C Green; Kurt D Christensen; L Adrienne Cupples; Norman R Relkin; Peter J Whitehouse; Charmaine D M Royal; Thomas O Obisesan; Robert Cook-Deegan; Erin Linnenbringer; Melissa Barber Butson; Grace-Ann Fasaye; Elana Levinson; J Scott Roberts
Journal:  Alzheimers Dement       Date:  2014-12-09       Impact factor: 21.566

8.  Disclosing Pleiotropic Effects During Genetic Risk Assessment for Alzheimer Disease: A Randomized Trial.

Authors:  Kurt D Christensen; J Scott Roberts; Peter J Whitehouse; Charmaine D M Royal; Thomas O Obisesan; L Adrienne Cupples; Jacqueline A Vernarelli; Deepak L Bhatt; Erin Linnenbringer; Melissa B Butson; Grace-Ann Fasaye; Wendy R Uhlmann; Susan Hiraki; Na Wang; Robert Cook-Deegan; Robert C Green
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2016-01-26       Impact factor: 25.391

9.  Evaluation of a Web-based decision aid for people considering the APOE genetic test for Alzheimer risk.

Authors:  Michael Ekstract; Golde I Holtzman; Kye Y Kim; Susan M Willis; Doris T Zallen
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2016-11-03       Impact factor: 8.822

10.  Using Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing Results to Accelerate Alzheimer Disease Clinical Trial Recruitment.

Authors:  Mary M Ryan; Chelsea G Cox; Megan Witbracht; Dan Hoang; Daniel L Gillen; Joshua D Grill
Journal:  Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord       Date:  2021 Apr-Jun 01       Impact factor: 2.703

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.