Barbara Lerner1, J Scott Roberts2, Michael Shwartz3, Debra L Roter4, Robert C Green5, Jack A Clark6. 1. VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, USA. Electronic address: barbara.lerner@va.gov. 2. University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, USA. 3. Boston University School of Management, Boston, USA. 4. Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, USA. 5. Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, USA. 6. Edith Nourse Rogers Memorial Veterans Hospital, Bedford, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To identify and characterize patient-provider communication patterns during disclosure of Alzheimer's disease genetic susceptibility test results and to assess whether these patterns reflect differing models of genetic counseling. METHODS: 262 genetic counseling session audio-recordings were coded using the Roter Interactional Analysis System. Cluster analysis was used to distinguish communication patterns. Bivariate analyses were used to identify characteristics associated with the patterns. RESULTS: Three patterns were identified: Biomedical-Provider-Teaching (40%), Biomedical-Patient-Driven (34.4%), and Psychosocial-Patient-Centered (26%). Psychosocial-Patient-Centered and Biomedical-Provider-Teaching sessions included more female participants while the Biomedical-Patient-Driven sessions included more male participants (p=0.04). CONCLUSION: Communication patterns observed reflected the teaching model primarily, with genetic counseling models less frequently used. The emphasis on biomedical communication may potentially be at the expense of more patient-centered approaches. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: To deliver more patient-centered care, providers may need to better balance the ratio of verbal exchange with their patients, as well as their educational and psychosocial discussions. The delineation of these patterns provides insights into the genetic counseling process that can be used to improve the delivery of genetic counseling care. These results can also be used in future research designed to study the association between patient-centered genetic counseling communication and improved patient outcomes. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd.
OBJECTIVE: To identify and characterize patient-provider communication patterns during disclosure of Alzheimer's disease genetic susceptibility test results and to assess whether these patterns reflect differing models of genetic counseling. METHODS: 262 genetic counseling session audio-recordings were coded using the Roter Interactional Analysis System. Cluster analysis was used to distinguish communication patterns. Bivariate analyses were used to identify characteristics associated with the patterns. RESULTS: Three patterns were identified: Biomedical-Provider-Teaching (40%), Biomedical-Patient-Driven (34.4%), and Psychosocial-Patient-Centered (26%). Psychosocial-Patient-Centered and Biomedical-Provider-Teaching sessions included more female participants while the Biomedical-Patient-Driven sessions included more male participants (p=0.04). CONCLUSION: Communication patterns observed reflected the teaching model primarily, with genetic counseling models less frequently used. The emphasis on biomedical communication may potentially be at the expense of more patient-centered approaches. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: To deliver more patient-centered care, providers may need to better balance the ratio of verbal exchange with their patients, as well as their educational and psychosocial discussions. The delineation of these patterns provides insights into the genetic counseling process that can be used to improve the delivery of genetic counseling care. These results can also be used in future research designed to study the association between patient-centered genetic counseling communication and improved patient outcomes. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd.
Entities:
Keywords:
Alzheimer's disease; Genetic counseling; Genetic testing; Patient-centeredness; Patient–provider communication
Authors: Robert C Green; L Adrienne Cupples; Rodney Go; Kelly S Benke; Timi Edeki; Patrick A Griffith; Mary Williams; Yvonne Hipps; Neill Graff-Radford; David Bachman; Lindsay A Farrer Journal: JAMA Date: 2002-01-16 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: N T Lautenschlager; L A Cupples; V S Rao; S A Auerbach; R Becker; J Burke; H Chui; R Duara; E J Foley; S L Glatt; R C Green; R Jones; H Karlinsky; W A Kukull; A Kurz; E B Larson; K Martelli; A D Sadovnick; L Volicer; S C Waring; J H Growdon; L A Farrer Journal: Neurology Date: 1996-03 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Yue Guan; Debra L Roter; Lori H Erby; Jennifer L Wolff; Laura N Gitlin; J Scott Roberts; Robert C Green; Kurt D Christensen Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2016-12-14
Authors: Sarah A Walser; Allison Werner-Lin; Rebecca Mueller; Victoria A Miller; Sawona Biswas; Barbara A Bernhardt Journal: Per Med Date: 2017-09-04 Impact factor: 2.512
Authors: Kelly E Ormond; Mercy Ygoña Laurino; Kristine Barlow-Stewart; Tina-Marié Wessels; Shelley Macaulay; Jehannine Austin; Anna Middleton Journal: Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet Date: 2018-03-25 Impact factor: 3.908