Victoria M White1, Mary-Anne Young2, Ashley Farrelly2, Bettina Meiser2, Michael Jefford2, Elizabeth Williamson2, Sandra Ieropoli2, Jessica Duffy2, Ingrid Winship2. 1. Victoria M. White, Ashley Farrelly, and Michael Jefford, Cancer Council Victoria; Elizabeth Williamson and Ingrid Winship, The University of Melbourne; Ingrid Winship, Royal Melbourne Hospital; Elizabeth Williamson, Monash University, Melbourne; Mary-Anne Young and Michael Jefford, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, East Melbourne; Sandra Ieropoli, Early in Life Mental Health Service, Monash Health Mental Health Program, Clayton, Victoria; Bettina Meiser, Prince of Wales Clinical School, The University of New South Wales, Sydney; and Jessica Duffy, Hereditary Cancer Clinic, Prince of Wales Hospital, Randwick, New South Wales, Australia. Vicki.White@cancervic.org.au. 2. Victoria M. White, Ashley Farrelly, and Michael Jefford, Cancer Council Victoria; Elizabeth Williamson and Ingrid Winship, The University of Melbourne; Ingrid Winship, Royal Melbourne Hospital; Elizabeth Williamson, Monash University, Melbourne; Mary-Anne Young and Michael Jefford, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, East Melbourne; Sandra Ieropoli, Early in Life Mental Health Service, Monash Health Mental Health Program, Clayton, Victoria; Bettina Meiser, Prince of Wales Clinical School, The University of New South Wales, Sydney; and Jessica Duffy, Hereditary Cancer Clinic, Prince of Wales Hospital, Randwick, New South Wales, Australia.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess the effectiveness of a telephone-based peer-delivered intervention in reducing distress among women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene mutation. The intervention involved trained peer volunteers contacting women multiple times over a 4-month period to provide informational, emotional, and practical support. METHODS:Three hundred thirty-seven participants completed the baseline questionnaire, and those reporting interest in talking to other mutation carriers were randomly assigned to either the usual care group (UCG; n = 102) or the intervention group (IG; n = 105). Participants and researchers were not blinded to group allocation. Two follow-up questionnaires were completed, one at the end of the intervention (4 months after random assignment, time 2) and one 2 months later (time 3). Outcomes included breast cancer distress (primary outcome), unmet information needs, cognitive appraisals about mutation testing, and feelings of isolation. RESULTS: There was a greater decrease in breast cancer distress scores in the IG than UCG at time 2 (mean difference, -5.96; 95% CI, -9.80 to -2.12; P = .002) and time 3 (mean difference, -3.94; 95% CI, -7.70 to -0.17; P = .04). There was a greater reduction in unmet information needs in the IG than UCG (P < .01), with unmet needs being lower in the IG than UCG at time 2. There was a greater reduction in Cognitive Appraisals About Genetic Testing stress subscale scores in the IG than UCG (P = .02), with significantly lower scores among the IG than UCG at time 2 (P < .01). CONCLUSION: The intervention is effective in reducing distress and unmet information needs for this group of women. Identifying strategies for prolonging intervention effects is warranted.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To assess the effectiveness of a telephone-based peer-delivered intervention in reducing distress among women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene mutation. The intervention involved trained peer volunteers contacting women multiple times over a 4-month period to provide informational, emotional, and practical support. METHODS: Three hundred thirty-seven participants completed the baseline questionnaire, and those reporting interest in talking to other mutation carriers were randomly assigned to either the usual care group (UCG; n = 102) or the intervention group (IG; n = 105). Participants and researchers were not blinded to group allocation. Two follow-up questionnaires were completed, one at the end of the intervention (4 months after random assignment, time 2) and one 2 months later (time 3). Outcomes included breast cancer distress (primary outcome), unmet information needs, cognitive appraisals about mutation testing, and feelings of isolation. RESULTS: There was a greater decrease in breast cancer distress scores in the IG than UCG at time 2 (mean difference, -5.96; 95% CI, -9.80 to -2.12; P = .002) and time 3 (mean difference, -3.94; 95% CI, -7.70 to -0.17; P = .04). There was a greater reduction in unmet information needs in the IG than UCG (P < .01), with unmet needs being lower in the IG than UCG at time 2. There was a greater reduction in Cognitive Appraisals About Genetic Testing stress subscale scores in the IG than UCG (P = .02), with significantly lower scores among the IG than UCG at time 2 (P < .01). CONCLUSION: The intervention is effective in reducing distress and unmet information needs for this group of women. Identifying strategies for prolonging intervention effects is warranted.
Authors: B Meiser; V F Quinn; M Gleeson; J Kirk; K M Tucker; B Rahman; C Saunders; K J Watts; M Peate; E Geelhoed; K Barlow-Stewart; M Field; M Harris; Y C Antill; G Mitchell Journal: Eur J Hum Genet Date: 2016-06-22 Impact factor: 4.246
Authors: Michael Jefford; Karla Gough; Allison Drosdowsky; Lahiru Russell; Sanchia Aranda; Phyllis Butow; Jo Phipps-Nelson; Jane Young; Mei Krishnasamy; Anna Ugalde; Dorothy King; Andrew Strickland; Michael Franco; Robert Blum; Catherine Johnson; Vinod Ganju; Jeremy Shapiro; Geoffrey Chong; Julie Charlton; Andrew Haydon; Penelope Schofield Journal: Oncologist Date: 2016-06-15
Authors: Kate A McBride; Mandy L Ballinger; Timothy E Schlub; Mary-Anne Young; Martin H N Tattersall; Judy Kirk; Ros Eeles; Emma Killick; Leslie G Walker; Sue Shanley; David M Thomas; Gillian Mitchell Journal: Fam Cancer Date: 2017-07 Impact factor: 2.375
Authors: Johannes Huber; Tanja Muck; Philipp Maatz; Bastian Keck; Paul Enders; Imad Maatouk; Andreas Ihrig Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2017-08-31 Impact factor: 4.442
Authors: Karen M Goldstein; Leah L Zullig; Eric A Dedert; Amir Alishahi Tabriz; Timothy W Brearly; Giselle Raitz; Suchita Shah Sata; John D Whited; Hayden B Bosworth; Adelaide M Gordon; Avishek Nagi; John W Williams; Jennifer M Gierisch Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2018-10-03 Impact factor: 6.473