Literature DB >> 29374276

Patient experience and utility of genetic information: a cross-sectional study among patients tested for cancer susceptibility and thrombophilia.

Elvira D'Andrea1,2, Tyra Lagerberg3, Corrado De Vito4, Erica Pitini4, Carolina Marzuillo4, Azzurra Massimi4, Maria Rosaria Vacchio4, Paola Grammatico5, Paolo Villari4.   

Abstract

We evaluated whether genetic tests with evidence of clinical and personal utility (i.e. APC and BRCA1/2 tests) are associated with higher satisfaction and a more positive perception of care experience than those with undefined utility (i.e. tests for thrombophilia). A cross-sectional survey was performed through telephone interviews to patients tested for deleterious variants in APC or BRCA1/2 genes, or for inherited thrombophilia (FV Leiden and/or FIIG20210A) during a 5-year period (2008-2012). Three aspects of patient experience were assessed: effective communication through pre- and post-test genetic counselling; collaboration between caregivers on the management of patient care; and impact of genetic testing on quality of life. Overall 237 patients had telephone interviews. Multivariate logistic regression analyses showed that patients tested for APC or BRCA1/2 variants were more likely to be satisfied with both pre- and post-test counselling than those tested for inherited thrombophilia (APC vs. thrombophilia, p = 0.039 and 0.005; BRCA1/2 vs. thrombophilia, p = 0.030 and <0.001). Patients tested for APC were more likely to report an improvement in quality of life than those for thrombophilia (OR = 2.97, 95%CI 1.14, 7.72; p = 0.025). A positive association was observed between patients who underwent BRCA1/2 testing, and self-perceived improvement in quality of life (OR = 1.41, 95%CI 0.74, 2.69; p = 0.294). Tests of undefined clinical and personal utility are associated with a lower degree of patient satisfaction with genetic counselling and no clear opinions on changes in quality of life compared with those with well-defined utility.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29374276      PMCID: PMC5891505          DOI: 10.1038/s41431-017-0083-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet        ISSN: 1018-4813            Impact factor:   4.246


  36 in total

1.  Are genetic tests exceptional? Lessons from a qualitative study on thrombophilia.

Authors:  Paula M Saukko; Suzanne H Richards; Maggie H Shepherd; John L Campbell
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2006-06-05       Impact factor: 4.634

2.  Toward a biopsychosocial model for 21st-century genetics.

Authors:  John S Rolland; Janet K Williams
Journal:  Fam Process       Date:  2005-03

Review 3.  Psychological impact of genetic testing for cancer susceptibility: an update of the literature.

Authors:  Bettina Meiser
Journal:  Psychooncology       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 3.894

Review 4.  Testing for thrombophilia: an evidence-based approach.

Authors:  L Merriman; M Greaves
Journal:  Postgrad Med J       Date:  2006-11       Impact factor: 2.401

5.  Benefit finding in response to BRCA1/2 testing.

Authors:  Carissa A Low; Julienne E Bower; Lorna Kwan; Joyce Seldon
Journal:  Ann Behav Med       Date:  2008-02-15

6.  Genetic testing for hereditary colorectal cancer in children: long-term psychological effects.

Authors:  Ann-Marie Codori; Kristin L Zawacki; Gloria M Petersen; Diana L Miglioretti; Judith A Bacon; Jill D Trimbath; Susan V Booker; Kimberly Picarello; Francis M Giardiello
Journal:  Am J Med Genet A       Date:  2003-01-15       Impact factor: 2.802

Review 7.  Outcome measurement in clinical genetics services: a systematic review of validated measures.

Authors:  Katherine Payne; Stuart Nicholls; Marion McAllister; Rhona Macleod; Dian Donnai; Linda M Davies
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2008 May-Jun       Impact factor: 5.725

Review 8.  The psychological impact of testing for thrombophilia: a systematic review.

Authors:  D M Cohn; F Vansenne; A A Kaptein; C A J M De Borgie; S Middeldorp
Journal:  J Thromb Haemost       Date:  2008-07-01       Impact factor: 5.824

9.  What is the clinical utility of genetic testing?

Authors:  Scott D Grosse; Muin J Khoury
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2006-07       Impact factor: 8.822

10.  Predictive genetic testing for BRCA1/2 in a UK clinical cohort: three-year follow-up.

Authors:  C Foster; M Watson; R Eeles; D Eccles; S Ashley; R Davidson; J Mackay; P J Morrison; P Hopwood; D G R Evans
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2007-02-06       Impact factor: 7.640

View more
  6 in total

Review 1.  The Evolution of Public Health Genomics: Exploring Its Past, Present, and Future.

Authors:  Caron M Molster; Faye L Bowman; Gemma A Bilkey; Angela S Cho; Belinda L Burns; Kristen J Nowak; Hugh J S Dawkins
Journal:  Front Public Health       Date:  2018-09-04

Review 2.  A systematic review of international guidelines and recommendations for the genetic screening, diagnosis, genetic counseling, and treatment of BRCA-mutated breast cancer.

Authors:  Carol Forbes; Debra Fayter; Shelley de Kock; Ruben Gw Quek
Journal:  Cancer Manag Res       Date:  2019-03-22       Impact factor: 3.989

3.  Attitudes toward the right to autonomous decision-making in psychiatric genetic testing: Controversial and context-dependent.

Authors:  Jana Strohmaier; Stephanie H Witt; Josef Frank; Noemi Lemme; Laura Flatau; Fabian Streit; Jerome C Foo; Markus Reitt; Dan Rujescu; Thomas G Schulze; Dirk Lanzerath; Franciska Illes; Franziska Degenhardt; Marcella Rietschel
Journal:  Am J Med Genet B Neuropsychiatr Genet       Date:  2019-03-26       Impact factor: 3.568

4.  CGH analysis in Colombian patients: findings of 1374 arrays in a seven-year study.

Authors:  Mary García-Acero; Fernando Suárez-Obando; Alberto Gómez-Gutiérrez
Journal:  Mol Cytogenet       Date:  2018-08-22       Impact factor: 2.009

5.  A proposal of a new evaluation framework towards implementation of genetic tests.

Authors:  Erica Pitini; Elvira D'Andrea; Corrado De Vito; Annalisa Rosso; Brigid Unim; Carolina Marzuillo; Antonio Federici; Emilio Di Maria; Paolo Villari
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-08-05       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Genomics knowledge and attitudes among European public health professionals: Results of a cross-sectional survey.

Authors:  Annalisa Rosso; Erica Pitini; Elvira D'Andrea; Marco Di Marco; Brigid Unim; Valentina Baccolini; Corrado De Vito; Carolina Marzuillo; Floris Barnhoorn; Dineke Zeegers Paget; Paolo Villari
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-04-02       Impact factor: 3.240

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.