BACKGROUND/AIMS: We compared the 6-Point Scale, a screening tool to identify low-income women for referral to genetic counseling, with genetic counselors' (GCs') recommendation and the Referral Screening Tool (RST). METHODS: RST and 6-Point Scale scores were computed for 2 samples: (1) S1, public hospital mammography clinic patients in 2006-2010 (n = 744), classified by GCs as high risk (meriting referral to counseling) or not high risk, and (2) S2, primary care patients enrolled in an education intervention study in 2011-2012 (n = 1,425). Sensitivity, specificity, and area under the ROC curve (AUROC) were computed for the 6-Point Scale score versus GC and RST classification as high risk. RESULTS: The 6-Point Scale had low sensitivity (0.27, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.21-0.34) but high specificity (0.97, 95% CI 0.95-0.99) and AUROC (0.85, 95% CI 0.81-0.90) versus GC classification, and high sensitivity (S1: 0.90, 95% CI 0.79-1.00; S2: 0.94, 95% CI 0.87-0.97), specificity (S1: 0.95, 95% CI 0.93-0.97; S2: 0.94, 95% CI 0.93-0.96), and AUROC (S1: 0.98, 95% CI 0.96-0.99; S2: 0.98, 95% CI 0.98-0.99) versus the RST. CONCLUSION: The 6-Point Scale compared favorably with the RST, a validated instrument, and is potentially useful as a simple tool for administration in a safety net setting, requiring minimal time investment by primary care physicians and their staff and no financial investment in tablet computers or software.
BACKGROUND/AIMS: We compared the 6-Point Scale, a screening tool to identify low-income women for referral to genetic counseling, with genetic counselors' (GCs') recommendation and the Referral Screening Tool (RST). METHODS:RST and 6-Point Scale scores were computed for 2 samples: (1) S1, public hospital mammography clinic patients in 2006-2010 (n = 744), classified by GCs as high risk (meriting referral to counseling) or not high risk, and (2) S2, primary care patients enrolled in an education intervention study in 2011-2012 (n = 1,425). Sensitivity, specificity, and area under the ROC curve (AUROC) were computed for the 6-Point Scale score versus GC and RST classification as high risk. RESULTS: The 6-Point Scale had low sensitivity (0.27, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.21-0.34) but high specificity (0.97, 95% CI 0.95-0.99) and AUROC (0.85, 95% CI 0.81-0.90) versus GC classification, and high sensitivity (S1: 0.90, 95% CI 0.79-1.00; S2: 0.94, 95% CI 0.87-0.97), specificity (S1: 0.95, 95% CI 0.93-0.97; S2: 0.94, 95% CI 0.93-0.96), and AUROC (S1: 0.98, 95% CI 0.96-0.99; S2: 0.98, 95% CI 0.98-0.99) versus the RST. CONCLUSION: The 6-Point Scale compared favorably with the RST, a validated instrument, and is potentially useful as a simple tool for administration in a safety net setting, requiring minimal time investment by primary care physicians and their staff and no financial investment in tablet computers or software.
Authors: Celia P Kaplan; Jennifer Livaudais-Toman; Jeffrey A Tice; Karla Kerlikowske; Steven E Gregorich; Eliseo J Pérez-Stable; Rena J Pasick; Alice Chen; Jessica Quinn; Leah S Karliner Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2014-04-24 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Heather Orom; Marc T Kiviniemi; Willie Underwood; Levi Ross; Vickie L Shavers Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2010-02-16 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Jennifer M Gierisch; Suzanne C O'Neill; Barbara K Rimer; Jessica T DeFrank; J Michael Bowling; Celette Sugg Skinner Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Date: 2009-05-29 Impact factor: 2.984
Authors: Margaret Sin; Julia E McGuinness; Meghna S Trivedi; Alejandro Vanegas; Thomas B Silverman; Katherine D Crew; Rita Kukafka Journal: AMIA Annu Symp Proc Date: 2018-12-05
Authors: Meghna S Trivedi; Hilary Colbeth; Haeseung Yi; Alejandro Vanegas; Rebecca Starck; Wendy K Chung; Paul S Appelbaum; Rita Kukafka; Isaac Schechter; Katherine D Crew Journal: Public Health Genomics Date: 2019-06-04 Impact factor: 2.000
Authors: Julia E McGuinness; Meghna S Trivedi; Thomas Silverman; Awilda Marte; Jennie Mata; Rita Kukafka; Katherine D Crew Journal: Cancer Genet Date: 2019-04-24
Authors: Laura Senier; Colleen M McBride; Alex T Ramsey; Vence L Bonham; David A Chambers Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-10-15 Impact factor: 3.390