Literature DB >> 25502223

The Long and Short of Genetic Counseling Summary Letters: A Case-control Study.

J Roggenbuck1, R Temme, D Pond, J Baker, K Jarvis, M Liu, S Dugan, N J Mendelsohn.   

Abstract

Genetic counseling summary letters are intended to reinforce information received during genetic counseling, but little information is available on patient/family responses to these letters. We conducted a case-control study to assess the effectiveness of two different letter formats. Parents of children receiving a new diagnosis were enrolled. The control group (n = 85) received a genetic counseling summary letter in a narrative format, 4-5 pages in length. After the control enrollment period, genetic counselors were trained by a professional medical writer to develop a concise letter format. The case group (n = 64) received a concise letter, approximately 1.5 pages in length, utilizing simple sentences, lay terms, and lists/bullet points. Parents completed a survey 4 weeks after the visit to rate the letter's format, usefulness, and their emotional reaction. Results show that parents in the case group rated the letter more highly (p = 0.023), particularly in the emotional response dimension (rating changes in anxiety, depression, fear, ability to cope, and confidence in response to the letter). Parents in the case group also rated the genetic counseling session more highly (p = 0.039). In the control group, parents without a college degree were more likely to rate the letter as too long and the level of medical detail as too high. In the case group, no significant differences were seen between parents with or without a college degree. These data suggest that a short genetic counseling summary letter is rated higher by parents, and is particularly associated with a more positive emotional reaction. A short letter format highlighting the basic facts related to the genetic condition may be more useful to parents of diverse educational backgrounds, and may support a positive emotional adaptation at the time of a new diagnosis. Genetic counselors may benefit from specific instruction in medical and educational writing.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25502223     DOI: 10.1007/s10897-014-9792-6

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


  16 in total

1.  Understanding Life's Lottery: An Evaluation of Studies of Genetic Risk Awareness.

Authors:  N Hallowell; M P Richards
Journal:  J Health Psychol       Date:  1997-01

2.  A new definition of Genetic Counseling: National Society of Genetic Counselors' Task Force report.

Authors:  Robert Resta; Barbara Bowles Biesecker; Robin L Bennett; Sandra Blum; Susan Estabrooks Hahn; Michelle N Strecker; Janet L Williams
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 2.537

Review 3.  Assessment of the content and process of genetic counseling: a critical review of empirical studies.

Authors:  Bettina Meiser; Jennifer Irle; Elizabeth Lobb; Kristine Barlow-Stewart
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2008-09-13       Impact factor: 2.537

Review 4.  Genetic services.

Authors:  D Donnai
Journal:  Clin Genet       Date:  2002-01       Impact factor: 4.438

5.  Family history of breast cancer: what do women understand and recall about their genetic risk?

Authors:  M Watson; V Duvivier; M Wade Walsh; S Ashley; J Davidson; M Papaikonomou; V Murday; N Sacks; R Eeles
Journal:  J Med Genet       Date:  1998-09       Impact factor: 6.318

6.  Written information to patients in clinical genetics: what's the impact?

Authors:  C Cassini; C Thauvin-Robinet; S Vinault; C Binquet; F Coron; A Masurel-Paulet; C Bonithon-Kopp; S Mercier; L Joly; F Huet; L Faivre
Journal:  Eur J Med Genet       Date:  2011-03-21       Impact factor: 2.708

7.  A survey of patients' experiences with the cancer genetic counseling process: recommendations for cancer genetics programs.

Authors:  Dana T Kausmeyer; Eugene J Lengerich; Brenda C Kluhsman; Dorothy Morrone; Gregory R Harper; Maria J Baker
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 2.537

8.  Providing letters to patients. Patients find summary letters useful.

Authors:  N Hallowell
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1998-06-13

9.  Accuracy of recall of information about a cancer-predisposing BRCA1/2 gene mutation among patients and relatives.

Authors:  Chris Jacobs; Caroline Dancyger; Jonathan A Smith; Susan Michie
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2014-05-21       Impact factor: 4.246

10.  Communication and information-giving in high-risk breast cancer consultations: influence on patient outcomes.

Authors:  E A Lobb; P N Butow; A Barratt; B Meiser; C Gaff; M A Young; E Haan; G Suthers; M Gattas; K Tucker
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2004-01-26       Impact factor: 7.640

View more
  7 in total

1.  From the laboratory to the clinic: sharing BRCA VUS reclassification tools with practicing genetics professionals.

Authors:  Bianca M Augusto; Paige Lake; Courtney L Scherr; Fergus J Couch; Noralane M Lindor; Susan T Vadaparampil
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2017-11-09

2.  Female family members lack understanding of indeterminate negative BRCA1/2 test results shared by probands.

Authors:  Deborah O Himes; Deborah K Gibbons; Wendy C Birmingham; Renea L Beckstrand; Amanda Gammon; Anita Y Kinney; Margaret F Clayton
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2019-06-14       Impact factor: 2.537

3.  Do research participants share genomic screening results with family members?

Authors:  Julia Wynn; Hila Milo Rasouly; Tania Vasquez-Loarte; Akilan M Saami; Robyn Weiss; Sonja I Ziniel; Paul S Appelbaum; Ellen Wright Clayton; Kurt D Christensen; David Fasel; Robert C Green; Heather S Hain; Margaret Harr; Christin Hoell; Iftikhar J Kullo; Kathleen A Leppig; Melanie F Myers; Joel E Pacyna; Emma F Perez; Cynthia A Prows; Alanna Kulchak Rahm; Gemme Campbell-Salome; Richard R Sharp; Maureen E Smith; Georgia L Wiesner; Janet L Williams; Carrie L Blout Zawatsky; Ali G Gharavi; Wendy K Chung; Ingrid A Holm
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2021-10-19       Impact factor: 2.717

4.  Assessment of the Readability of Genetic Counseling Patient Letters.

Authors:  Emily Brown; Megan Skinner; Stephanie Ashley; Kate Reed; Shannan DeLany Dixon
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2015-09-29       Impact factor: 2.537

5.  Assessment of Current Genetic Counselor Practices in Post-Visit Written Communications to Patients.

Authors:  Emily VandenBoom; Angela M Trepanier; Erin P Carmany
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2017-10-12       Impact factor: 2.537

6.  Limitations and Pitfalls of Using Family Letters to Communicate Genetic Risk: a Qualitative Study with Patients and Healthcare Professionals.

Authors:  Sandi Dheensa; Anneke Lucassen; Angela Fenwick
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2017-11-01       Impact factor: 2.537

7.  Understanding the Return of Genomic Sequencing Results Process: Content Review of Participant Summary Letters in the eMERGE Research Network.

Authors:  John A Lynch; Richard R Sharp; Sharon A Aufox; Sarah T Bland; Carrie Blout; Deborah J Bowen; Adam H Buchanan; Colin Halverson; Margaret Harr; Scott J Hebbring; Nora Henrikson; Christin Hoell; Ingrid A Holm; Gail Jarvik; Iftikhar J Kullo; David C Kochan; Eric B Larson; Amanda Lazzeri; Kathleen A Leppig; Jill Madden; Maddalena Marasa; Melanie F Myers; Josh Peterson; Cynthia A Prows; Alanna Kulchak Rahm; James Ralston; Hila Milo Rasouly; Aaron Scrol; Maureen E Smith; Amy Sturm; Kelsey Stuttgen; Georgia Wiesner; Marc S Williams; Julia Wynn; Janet L Williams
Journal:  J Pers Med       Date:  2020-05-13
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.