Caroline M Benjamin1, Lois H Thomas2, Heather Skirton3, Shanna Gustafson4, Jacqueline Coupe2, Christine Patch5, Rachel Belk6, Svetlana Tishkovskaya2, Kathleen Calzone7, Katherine Payne8. 1. School of Health, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, UK; Department of Clinical Genetics, Liverpool Women's NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK. 2. School of Health, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, UK. 3. Faculty of Health and Human Sciences, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK. 4. InformedDNA, Saint Petersburg, Florida, USA. 5. Department of Clinical Genetics, Guys and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. 6. Manchester Centre for Genomic Medicine, St Mary's Hospital, Manchester, UK. 7. Centre for Cancer Research, Genetics Branch, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland, USA. 8. Manchester Centre for Health Economics, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Abstract
This is the protocol for a review and there is no abstract. The objectives are as follows. PRIMARY OBJECTIVE: The primary objective is to assess the effectiveness of interventions to improve patient identification, access to and utilisation of genetic and genomic counselling services when compared to: No intervention;Usual or current practice; andOther active intervention. SECONDARY OBJECTIVE: The secondary objective is to explore the resource use and costs associated with interventions aimed at improving patient identification, access to and utilisation of genetic and genomic counselling services from studies meeting the eligibility criteria. We will report on factors that may explain variation in the effectiveness of interventions aimed at improving patient identification, access to and utilisation of genetic and genomic counselling services from studies meeting the eligibility criteria. Another secondary objective is to explore how interventions which target improved patient identification, access to and utilisation of genetic and genomic counselling services affect the subsequent appropriate use of health services for the prevention or early detection of disease. It is also possible that the genetic counselling interaction itself will contribute to the possible use of preventative services.
This is the protocol for a review and there is no abstract. The objectives are as follows. PRIMARY OBJECTIVE: The primary objective is to assess the effectiveness of interventions to improve patient identification, access to and utilisation of genetic and genomic counselling services when compared to: No intervention;Usual or current practice; andOther active intervention. SECONDARY OBJECTIVE: The secondary objective is to explore the resource use and costs associated with interventions aimed at improving patient identification, access to and utilisation of genetic and genomic counselling services from studies meeting the eligibility criteria. We will report on factors that may explain variation in the effectiveness of interventions aimed at improving patient identification, access to and utilisation of genetic and genomic counselling services from studies meeting the eligibility criteria. Another secondary objective is to explore how interventions which target improved patient identification, access to and utilisation of genetic and genomic counselling services affect the subsequent appropriate use of health services for the prevention or early detection of disease. It is also possible that the genetic counselling interaction itself will contribute to the possible use of preventative services.
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
Authors: N Torrance; J Mollison; S Wordsworth; J Gray; Z Miedzybrodzka; N Haites; A Grant; M Campbell; M S Watson; A Clarke; B Wilson Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2006-07-11 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Jan M Hodgson; Sylvia A Metcalfe; Maryanne Aitken; Susan M Donath; Clara L Gaff; Ingrid M Winship; Martin B Delatycki; Loane L C Skene; Belinda J McClaren; Jean L Paul; Jane L Halliday Journal: BMC Med Genet Date: 2014-03-14 Impact factor: 2.103