Literature DB >> 24014153

Acceptability of telemedicine and other cancer genetic counseling models of service delivery in geographically remote settings.

Eileen McDonald1, Amanda Lamb, Barbara Grillo, Lee Lucas, Susan Miesfeldt.   

Abstract

This work examined acceptability of cancer genetic counseling models of service delivery among Maine residents at risk for hereditary cancer susceptibility disorders. Pre-counseling, participants ranked characteristics reflecting models of care from most to least important including: mode-of-communication (in-person versus telegenetics), provider level of training (genetic specialty versus some training/experience), delivery format (one-on-one versus group counseling), and location (local versus tertiary service requiring travel). Associations between models of care characteristic rankings and patient characteristics, including rural residence, perceived cancer risk, and perceived risk for a hereditary cancer risk susceptibility disorder were examined. A total of 149/300 (49.7% response rate) individuals from 11/16 Maine counties responded; 30.8% were from rural counties; 92.2% indicated that an important/the most important model of care characteristic is provider professional qualifications. Among other characteristics, 65.1% ranked one-on-one counseling as important/the most important. In-person and local counseling were ranked the two least important characteristics (51.8% and 52.1% important/the most important, respectively). Responses did not vary by patient characteristics with the exception of greater acceptance of group counseling among those at perceived high personal cancer risk. Cancer telegenetic services hold promise for access to expert providers in a one-on-one format for rurally remote clients.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24014153     DOI: 10.1007/s10897-013-9652-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Genet Couns        ISSN: 1059-7700            Impact factor:   2.537


  23 in total

1.  Primary care physicians' attitudes and practices regarding cancer genetics: a comparison of 2001 with 1996 survey results.

Authors:  Lois C Friedman; H Paul Cooper; John A Webb; Armin D Weinberg; Sharon E Plon
Journal:  J Cancer Educ       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 2.037

2.  Errors in delivery of cancer genetics services: implications for practice.

Authors:  Karina L Brierley; Danielle Campfield; Whitney Ducaine; Lindsay Dohany; Talia Donenberg; Kristen Shannon; Robin C Schwartz; Ellen T Matloff
Journal:  Conn Med       Date:  2010-08

3.  Delivery of Internet-based cancer genetic counselling services to patients' homes: a feasibility study.

Authors:  Neal J Meropol; Mary B Daly; Hetal S Vig; Frank J Manion; Sharon L Manne; Carla Mazar; Camara Murphy; Nicholas Solarino; Vadim Zubarev
Journal:  J Telemed Telecare       Date:  2010-11-19       Impact factor: 6.184

4.  Patients' perceptions of a telemedicine specialty clinic.

Authors:  F Mair; P Whitten; C May; G C Doolittle
Journal:  J Telemed Telecare       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 6.184

5.  Telegenetics in Maine: Successful clinical and educational service delivery model developed from a 3-year pilot project.

Authors:  Dale Halsey Lea; Judith L Johnson; Sara Ellingwood; Walter Allan; Arvind Patel; Rosemarie Smith
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 8.822

6.  Ethnic differences in knowledge and attitudes about BRCA1 testing in women at increased risk.

Authors:  C Hughes; A Gomez-Caminero; J Benkendorf; J Kerner; C Isaacs; J Barter; C Lerman
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  1997 Sep-Oct

7.  Controlled trial of pretest education approaches to enhance informed decision-making for BRCA1 gene testing.

Authors:  C Lerman; B Biesecker; J L Benkendorf; J Kerner; A Gomez-Caminero; C Hughes; M M Reed
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1997-01-15       Impact factor: 13.506

8.  Attitudes, knowledge, and risk perceptions of women with breast and/or ovarian cancer considering testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2.

Authors:  L G Bluman; B K Rimer; D A Berry; N Borstelmann; J D Iglehart; K Regan; J Schildkraut; E P Winer
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  1999-03       Impact factor: 44.544

9.  Empowering primary care health professionals in medical genetics: how soon? How fast? How far?

Authors:  K Greendale; R E Pyeritz
Journal:  Am J Med Genet       Date:  2001

10.  Report from the National Society of Genetic Counselors service delivery model task force: a proposal to define models, components, and modes of referral.

Authors:  Stephanie A Cohen; Shanna L Gustafson; Monica L Marvin; Bronson D Riley; Wendy R Uhlmann; S Bonnie Liebers; Julie A Rousseau
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2012-05-08       Impact factor: 2.537

View more
  19 in total

1.  Genetic counselors' practices and confidence regarding variant of uncertain significance results and reclassification from BRCA testing.

Authors:  C L Scherr; N M Lindor; T L Malo; F J Couch; S T Vadaparampil
Journal:  Clin Genet       Date:  2015-02-26       Impact factor: 4.438

2.  Telegenetics use in presymptomatic genetic counselling: patient evaluations on satisfaction and quality of care.

Authors:  Ellen Otten; Erwin Birnie; Adelita V Ranchor; Irene M van Langen
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2015-07-15       Impact factor: 4.246

3.  Promoting guideline-based cancer genetic risk assessment for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer in ethnically and geographically diverse cancer survivors: Rationale and design of a 3-arm randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Anita Y Kinney; Rachel Howell; Rachel Ruckman; Jean A McDougall; Tawny W Boyce; Belinda Vicuña; Ji-Hyun Lee; Dolores D Guest; Randi Rycroft; Patricia A Valverde; Kristina M Gallegos; Angela Meisner; Charles L Wiggins; Antoinette Stroup; Lisa E Paddock; Scott T Walters
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials       Date:  2018-09-18       Impact factor: 2.226

4.  The State of Cancer Care in America, 2016: A Report by the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Authors: 
Journal:  J Oncol Pract       Date:  2016-03-15       Impact factor: 3.840

5.  Telegenetics: an Update on Availability and Use of Telemedicine in Clinical Genetics Service.

Authors:  Irena Vrečar; Dimitar Hristovski; Borut Peterlin
Journal:  J Med Syst       Date:  2016-12-17       Impact factor: 4.460

6.  Comparison of willingness and preference for genetic counseling via telemedicine: before vs. during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Authors:  Camille O Allison; Sandra K Prucka; Sara M Fitzgerald-Butt; Benjamin M Helm; Melissa Lah; Leah Wetherill; Rebecca E Baud
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2022-07-07

7.  Perceptions of video-based appointments from the patient's home: a patient survey.

Authors:  Matthew R Gardner; Sarah M Jenkins; Daniel A O'Neil; Douglas L Wood; Barbara R Spurrier; Sandhya Pruthi
Journal:  Telemed J E Health       Date:  2014-08-28       Impact factor: 3.536

8.  Pre-test genetic counseling services for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer delivered by non-genetics professionals in the state of Florida.

Authors:  S T Vadaparampil; C L Scherr; D Cragun; T L Malo; T Pal
Journal:  Clin Genet       Date:  2014-05-09       Impact factor: 4.438

9.  Patient Perceptions of Telephone vs. In-Person BRCA1/BRCA2 Genetic Counseling.

Authors:  Beth N Peshkin; Scott Kelly; Rachel H Nusbaum; Morgan Similuk; Tiffani A DeMarco; Gillian W Hooker; Heiddis B Valdimarsdottir; Andrea D Forman; Jessica Rispoli Joines; Claire Davis; Shelley R McCormick; Wendy McKinnon; Kristi D Graves; Claudine Isaacs; Judy Garber; Marie Wood; Lina Jandorf; Marc D Schwartz
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2015-10-12       Impact factor: 2.537

Review 10.  Narrative review of telemedicine consultation in medical practice.

Authors:  Alessandro Di Cerbo; Julio Cesar Morales-Medina; Beniamino Palmieri; Tommaso Iannitti
Journal:  Patient Prefer Adherence       Date:  2015-01-13       Impact factor: 2.711

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.