Literature DB >> 26969308

Patient and genetic counselor perceptions of in-person versus telephone genetic counseling for hereditary breast/ovarian cancer.

Aryana S Jacobs1, Marc D Schwartz1, Heiddis Valdimarsdottir2,3, Rachel H Nusbaum4, Gillian W Hooker5, Tiffani A DeMarco6, Jessica E Heinzmann7, Wendy McKinnon8, Shelley R McCormick9, Claire Davis10, Andrea D Forman11, Alexandra Perez Lebensohn12, Emily Dalton13, Diana Moglia Tully4, Kristi D Graves1, Morgan Similuk14, Scott Kelly15, Beth N Peshkin16.   

Abstract

Telephone genetic counseling (TC) for high-risk women interested in BRCA1/2 testing has been shown to yield positive outcomes comparable to usual care (UC; in-person) genetic counseling. However, little is known about how genetic counselors perceive the delivery of these alternate forms of genetic counseling. As part of a randomized trial of TC versus UC, genetic counselors completed a 5-item genetic counselor process questionnaire (GCQ) assessing key elements of pre-test sessions (information delivery, emotional support, addressing questions and concerns, tailoring of session, and facilitation of decision-making) with the 479 female participants (TC, N = 236; UC, N = 243). The GCQ scores did not differ for TC vs. UC sessions (t (477) = 0.11, p = 0.910). However, multivariate analysis showed that participant race/ethnicity significantly predicted genetic counselor perceptions (β = 0.172, p < 0.001) in that the GCQ scores were lower for minorities in TC and UC. Exploratory analyses suggested that GCQ scores may be associated with patient preference for UC versus TC (t (79) = 2.21, p = 0.030). Additionally, we found that genetic counselor ratings of session effectiveness were generally concordant with patient perceptions of the session. These data indicate that genetic counselors perceive that key components of TC can be delivered as effectively as UC, and that these elements may contribute to specific aspects of patient satisfaction. However, undefined process differences may be present which account for lower counselor perceptions about the effectiveness of their sessions with minority women (i.e., those other than non-Hispanic Whites). We discuss other potential clinical and research implications of our findings.

Entities:  

Keywords:  BRCA1/BRCA2; Genetic counseling; Patient satisfaction; Telephone counseling

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26969308      PMCID: PMC5011450          DOI: 10.1007/s10689-016-9900-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Fam Cancer        ISSN: 1389-9600            Impact factor:   2.375


  35 in total

1.  Genetic counselor opinions of, and experiences with telephone communication of BRCA1/2 test results.

Authors:  A R Bradbury; L Patrick-Miller; D Fetzer; B Egleston; S A Cummings; A Forman; L Bealin; C Peterson; M Corbman; J O'Connell; M B Daly
Journal:  Clin Genet       Date:  2010-10-12       Impact factor: 4.438

Review 2.  Adult measures of general health and health-related quality of life: Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36-Item (SF-36) and Short Form 12-Item (SF-12) Health Surveys, Nottingham Health Profile (NHP), Sickness Impact Profile (SIP), Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 6D (SF-6D), Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3), Quality of Well-Being Scale (QWB), and Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL).

Authors:  Lucy Busija; Eva Pausenberger; Terry P Haines; Sharon Haymes; Rachelle Buchbinder; Richard H Osborne
Journal:  Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken)       Date:  2011-11       Impact factor: 4.794

3.  Genetic counselors' implicit racial attitudes and their relationship to communication.

Authors:  Kendra L Schaa; Debra L Roter; Barbara B Biesecker; Lisa A Cooper; Lori H Erby
Journal:  Health Psychol       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 4.267

4.  A global measure of perceived stress.

Authors:  S Cohen; T Kamarck; R Mermelstein
Journal:  J Health Soc Behav       Date:  1983-12

5.  Utilization and Outcomes of BRCA Genetic Testing and Counseling in a National Commercially Insured Population: The ABOUT Study.

Authors:  Joanne Armstrong; Michele Toscano; Nancy Kotchko; Sue Friedman; Marc D Schwartz; Katherine S Virgo; Kristian Lynch; James E Andrews; Claudia X Aguado Loi; Joseph E Bauer; Carolina Casares; Elizabeth Bourquardez Clark; Matthew R Kondoff; Ashley D Molina; Mehrnaz Abdollahian; Gregg Walker; Rebecca Sutphen
Journal:  JAMA Oncol       Date:  2015-12       Impact factor: 31.777

6.  Reported referral for genetic counseling or BRCA 1/2 testing among United States physicians: a vignette-based study.

Authors:  Katrina F Trivers; Laura-Mae Baldwin; Jacqueline W Miller; Barbara Matthews; C Holly A Andrilla; Denise M Lishner; Barbara A Goff
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2011-07-25       Impact factor: 6.860

7.  Risk assessment, genetic counseling, and genetic testing for BRCA-related cancer in women: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.

Authors:  Virginia A Moyer
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2014-02-18       Impact factor: 25.391

8.  Patient satisfaction with cancer genetic counseling: a psychometric analysis of the Genetic Counseling Satisfaction Scale.

Authors:  Tiffani A DeMarco; Beth N Peshkin; Bryn D Mars; Kenneth P Tercyak
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 2.537

9.  Telephone genetic counseling for high-risk women undergoing BRCA1 and BRCA2 testing: rationale and development of a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Beth N Peshkin; Tiffani A Demarco; Kristi D Graves; Karen Brown; Rachel H Nusbaum; Diana Moglia; Andrea Forman; Heiddis Valdimarsdottir; Marc D Schwartz
Journal:  Genet Test       Date:  2008-03

10.  Impact of Event Scale: a measure of subjective stress.

Authors:  M Horowitz; N Wilner; W Alvarez
Journal:  Psychosom Med       Date:  1979-05       Impact factor: 4.312

View more
  6 in total

Review 1.  Racial/Ethnic Disparities in BRCA Counseling and Testing: a Narrative Review.

Authors:  Christina D Williams; Alyssa Jasmine Bullard; Meghan O'Leary; Reana Thomas; Thomas S Redding; Karen Goldstein
Journal:  J Racial Ethn Health Disparities       Date:  2019-04-08

2.  Counselees' Perspectives of Genomic Counseling Following Online Receipt of Multiple Actionable Complex Disease and Pharmacogenomic Results: a Qualitative Research Study.

Authors:  Kevin Sweet; Shelly Hovick; Amy C Sturm; Tara Schmidlen; Erynn Gordon; Barbara Bernhardt; Lisa Wawak; Karen Wernke; Joseph McElroy; Laura Scheinfeldt; Amanda E Toland; J S Roberts; Michael Christman
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2016-12-05       Impact factor: 2.537

3.  Prospective Feasibility Trial of a Novel Strategy of Facilitated Cascade Genetic Testing Using Telephone Counseling.

Authors:  Melissa K Frey; Ryan M Kahn; Eloise Chapman-Davis; Francesca Tubito; Maira Pires; Paul Christos; Samantha Anderson; Semanti Mukherjee; Bailey Jordan; Stephanie V Blank; Thomas A Caputo; Ravi N Sharaf; Kenneth Offit; Kevin Holcomb; Steven Lipkin
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2020-01-10       Impact factor: 44.544

4.  Genetic counseling referral for ovarian cancer patients: a call to action.

Authors:  Christine Garcia; Kara Harrison; Kari L Ring; Mackenzie W Sullivan; Lisa A Rauh; Susan C Modesitt
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2019-07       Impact factor: 2.375

5.  Randomized trial of proactive rapid genetic counseling versus usual care for newly diagnosed breast cancer patients.

Authors:  Marc D Schwartz; Beth N Peshkin; Claudine Isaacs; Shawna Willey; Heiddis B Valdimarsdottir; Rachel Nusbaum; Gillian Hooker; Suzanne O'Neill; Lina Jandorf; Scott P Kelly; Jessica Heinzmann; Aliza Zidell; Katia Khoury
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2018-04-02       Impact factor: 4.872

6.  Sudden shift to remote genetic counseling during the COVID-19 pandemic: Experiences of genetics professionals in Italy.

Authors:  Daniela Turchetti; Linda Battistuzzi; Benedetta Bertonazzi; Lea Godino
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2021-06-06       Impact factor: 2.717

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.