Adrianne R Mallen1,2, Claire C Conley3,4, Lindsay Fuzzell3, Dana Ketcher3, Bianca M Augusto3, McKenzie McIntyre3, Laura V Barton5, Mary K Townsend6, Brooke L Fridley7, Shelley S Tworoger6, Robert M Wenham1, Susan T Vadaparampil8. 1. Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA. 2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA. 3. Department of Health Outcomes & Behavior, Moffitt Cancer Center, 12902 Magnolia Drive, MRC-COEE, Tampa, FL, 33612, USA. 4. Department of Oncology, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA. 5. Department of Genetics, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA. 6. Department of Cancer Epidemiology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA. 7. Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA. 8. Department of Health Outcomes & Behavior, Moffitt Cancer Center, 12902 Magnolia Drive, MRC-COEE, Tampa, FL, 33612, USA. susan.vadaparampil@moffitt.org.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Identify predisposing, enabling, and reinforcing factors impacting genetic counseling/testing among ovarian cancer patients guided by Green and Kreuter's PRECEDE-PROCEED model. METHODS: Gynecologic oncology providers (N = 4), genetic counselors (N = 4), and ovarian cancer patients (N = 9) completed semi-structured qualitative interviews exploring participants' knowledge of and experiences with genetic counseling/testing. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using inductive content analysis by two independent raters. RESULTS: Thematic analysis identified predisposing, enabling, and reinforcing factors impacting referral for and uptake of genetic counseling/testing. Predisposing factors included participant's knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes related to genetic counseling/testing. Both patients and providers also cited that insurance coverage and out-of-pocket cost are major concerns for ovarian cancer patients considering genetic testing. Finally, both patients and providers emphasized that genetic counseling/testing would provide additional information to an ovarian cancer patient. While providers emphasized that genetic testing results were useful for informing a patient's personal treatment plan, patients emphasized that this knowledge would be beneficial for their family members. CONCLUSION: Barriers to genetic testing for ovarian cancer patients exist at multiple levels, including the patient (e.g., knowledge, attitudes), the provider (e.g., workload, availability of services), the institution (e.g., difficulty with referrals/scheduling), and the healthcare system (e.g., insurance/cost). Interventions aiming to increase genetic testing among ovarian cancer patients will likely need to target multiple levels of influence. Future quantitative studies are needed to replicate these results. This line of work will inform specific multilevel intervention strategies that are adaptable to different practice settings, ultimately improving guideline concordant care.
OBJECTIVE: Identify predisposing, enabling, and reinforcing factors impacting genetic counseling/testing among ovarian cancer patients guided by Green and Kreuter's PRECEDE-PROCEED model. METHODS: Gynecologic oncology providers (N = 4), genetic counselors (N = 4), and ovarian cancer patients (N = 9) completed semi-structured qualitative interviews exploring participants' knowledge of and experiences with genetic counseling/testing. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using inductive content analysis by two independent raters. RESULTS: Thematic analysis identified predisposing, enabling, and reinforcing factors impacting referral for and uptake of genetic counseling/testing. Predisposing factors included participant's knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes related to genetic counseling/testing. Both patients and providers also cited that insurance coverage and out-of-pocket cost are major concerns for ovarian cancer patients considering genetic testing. Finally, both patients and providers emphasized that genetic counseling/testing would provide additional information to an ovarian cancer patient. While providers emphasized that genetic testing results were useful for informing a patient's personal treatment plan, patients emphasized that this knowledge would be beneficial for their family members. CONCLUSION: Barriers to genetic testing for ovarian cancer patients exist at multiple levels, including the patient (e.g., knowledge, attitudes), the provider (e.g., workload, availability of services), the institution (e.g., difficulty with referrals/scheduling), and the healthcare system (e.g., insurance/cost). Interventions aiming to increase genetic testing among ovarian cancer patients will likely need to target multiple levels of influence. Future quantitative studies are needed to replicate these results. This line of work will inform specific multilevel intervention strategies that are adaptable to different practice settings, ultimately improving guideline concordant care.
Authors: Erica M Bednar; Holly D Oakley; Charlotte C Sun; Catherine C Burke; Mark F Munsell; Shannon N Westin; Karen H Lu Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2017-06-10 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Thomas B Silverman; Gilad J Kuperman; Alejandro Vanegas; Margaret Sin; Jill Dimond; Katherine D Crew; Rita Kukafka Journal: AMIA Annu Symp Proc Date: 2018-12-05
Authors: Margaret I Liang; Deanna H Wong; Christine S Walsh; Robin Farias-Eisner; Joshua G Cohen Journal: J Genet Couns Date: 2017-08-07 Impact factor: 2.537
Authors: Leslie M Randall; Bhavana Pothuri; Elizabeth M Swisher; John P Diaz; Adam Buchanan; Catherine T Witkop; C Bethan Powell; Ellen Blair Smith; Mark E Robson; Jeff Boyd; Robert L Coleman; Karen Lu Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2017-06-07 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Susan T Vadaparampil; Gwendolyn P Quinn; Cheryl A Miree; Jennifer Brzosowicz; Bradford Carter; Christine Laronga Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2009-04-30 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Panagiotis A Konstantinopoulos; Barbara Norquist; Christina Lacchetti; Deborah Armstrong; Rachel N Grisham; Paul J Goodfellow; Elise C Kohn; Douglas A Levine; Joyce F Liu; Karen H Lu; Dorinda Sparacio; Christina M Annunziata Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2020-01-27 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Claire C Conley; McKenzie McIntyre; Nicole A Pensak; Filipa Lynce; Deena Graham; Roohi Ismail-Khan; Katherine Lopez; Susan T Vadaparampil; Suzanne C O'Neill Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2022-01-07 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Claire C Conley; Jessica N Rivera Rivera; Eida M Castro-Figueroa; Laura Moreno; Julie Dutil; Jennifer D García; Charité Ricker; Gwendolyn P Quinn; Hatem Soliman; Susan T Vadaparampil Journal: Transl Behav Med Date: 2022-10-07 Impact factor: 3.626