Literature DB >> 9733031

Family history of breast cancer: what do women understand and recall about their genetic risk?

M Watson1, V Duvivier, M Wade Walsh, S Ashley, J Davidson, M Papaikonomou, V Murday, N Sacks, R Eeles.   

Abstract

The current study has two aims: (1) to look at people's recall of risk information after genetic counselling and (2) to determine the impact of receiving an audiotape of the genetic consultation on level of recall, cancer related worry, and women's uptake of risk management methods. Using a prospective randomised controlled design, subjects receiving an audiotape were compared with a standard consultation group. Participants were drawn from attenders at the genetic clinics of two London hospitals and included 115 women with a family history of breast cancer. Assessment of perceived genetic risk, mental health, cancer worry, and health behaviour was made before counselling at the clinic (baseline) and by postal follow up. Usefulness of audiotapes and satisfaction with the clinical service was assessed by study specific measures. The data indicate that cancer worry is reduced by provision of an audiotape of the genetic consultation. Recall of the genetic risk figure, however, is not affected by provision of an audiotape and neither is it related to women's overall perception of being more or less at risk of breast cancer than the average woman. Forty-one percent of women accurately recalled their personal risk of breast cancer at one month follow up; however, 25% overestimated, 11% underestimated, and 23% could not remember or did not know their breast cancer risk. Recall of the risk figure is more accurate when the clinical geneticist has given this to the woman as an odds ratio rather than in other formats. Subsequent health behaviour is unaffected by whether women have an audiotape record of their genetic consultation. Results suggest that having a precise risk figure may be less important than women taking away from the consultation an impression that something can be offered to help them manage that risk. Provision of an audiotape of the consultation is of limited usefulness. The need for psychological care to be better integrated into genetic counselling at cancer family clinics was highlighted by the study. The results are discussed in terms of future service development.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9733031      PMCID: PMC1051425          DOI: 10.1136/jmg.35.9.731

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Med Genet        ISSN: 0022-2593            Impact factor:   6.318


  12 in total

1.  Information giving in oncology: a preliminary study of tape-recorder use.

Authors:  N North; M A Cornbleet; G Knowles; R C Leonard
Journal:  Br J Clin Psychol       Date:  1992-09

2.  Localization of a breast cancer susceptibility gene, BRCA2, to chromosome 13q12-13.

Authors:  R Wooster; S L Neuhausen; J Mangion; Y Quirk; D Ford; N Collins; K Nguyen; S Seal; T Tran; D Averill
Journal:  Science       Date:  1994-09-30       Impact factor: 47.728

3.  Younger women at increased risk for breast cancer: perceived risk, psychological well-being, and surveillance behavior.

Authors:  C Lerman; K Kash; M Stefanek
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr       Date:  1994

4.  Psychological and behavioral implications of abnormal mammograms.

Authors:  C Lerman; B Trock; B K Rimer; A Boyce; C Jepson; P F Engstrom
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  1991-04-15       Impact factor: 25.391

5.  A strong candidate for the breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility gene BRCA1.

Authors:  Y Miki; J Swensen; D Shattuck-Eidens; P A Futreal; K Harshman; S Tavtigian; Q Liu; C Cochran; L M Bennett; W Ding
Journal:  Science       Date:  1994-10-07       Impact factor: 47.728

6.  Genetic linkage analysis in familial breast and ovarian cancer: results from 214 families. The Breast Cancer Linkage Consortium.

Authors:  D F Easton; D T Bishop; D Ford; G P Crockford
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  1993-04       Impact factor: 11.025

Review 7.  Psychosocial and ethical implications of defining genetic risk for cancers.

Authors:  K M Kash
Journal:  Ann N Y Acad Sci       Date:  1995-09-30       Impact factor: 5.691

8.  Psychological distress and surveillance behaviors of women with a family history of breast cancer.

Authors:  K M Kash; J C Holland; M S Halper; D G Miller
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1992-01-01       Impact factor: 13.506

9.  Perception of risk in women with a family history of breast cancer.

Authors:  D G Evans; L D Burnell; P Hopwood; A Howell
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  1993-03       Impact factor: 7.640

10.  Familial breast cancer: a controlled study of risk perception, psychological morbidity and health beliefs in women attending for genetic counselling.

Authors:  S Lloyd; M Watson; B Waites; L Meyer; R Eeles; S Ebbs; A Tylee
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  1996-08       Impact factor: 7.640

View more
  43 in total

1.  Risk perceptions and family history of lung cancer: differences by smoking status.

Authors:  L S Chen; K A Kaphingst
Journal:  Public Health Genomics       Date:  2010-04-08       Impact factor: 2.000

2.  Recommendation recall and satisfaction after attending breast/ovarian cancer risk counseling.

Authors:  Sharon L Bober; Lizbeth A Hoke; Rosemary B Duda; Nadine M Tung
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2007-08-04       Impact factor: 2.537

3.  Knowledge and expectations of women undergoing cancer genetic risk assessment: a qualitative analysis of free-text questionnaire comments.

Authors:  C Phelps; F Wood; P Bennett; K Brain; J Gray
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2007-02-23       Impact factor: 2.537

Review 4.  How risk is perceived, constructed and interpreted by clients in clinical genetics, and the effects on decision making: systematic review.

Authors:  Stephanie Sivell; Glyn Elwyn; Clara L Gaff; Angus J Clarke; Rachel Iredale; Chris Shaw; Joanna Dundon; Hazel Thornton; Adrian Edwards
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2007-10-30       Impact factor: 2.537

5.  Assessment of psychosocial outcomes in genetic counseling research: an overview of available measurement scales.

Authors:  Nadine A Kasparian; Claire E Wakefield; Bettina Meiser
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2007-08-13       Impact factor: 2.537

Review 6.  A systematic review of interventions to improve recall of medical advice in healthcare consultations.

Authors:  Philip W B Watson; Brian McKinstry
Journal:  J R Soc Med       Date:  2009-06       Impact factor: 5.344

Review 7.  Patient responses to genetic information: studies of patients with hereditary cancer syndromes identify issues for use of genetic testing in nephrology practice.

Authors:  Kimberly A Kaphingst; Colleen M McBride
Journal:  Semin Nephrol       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 5.299

8.  The Colored, Eco-Genetic Relationship Map (CEGRM): A Conceptual Approach and Tool for Genetic Counseling Research.

Authors:  R Kenen; J Peters
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2001-08       Impact factor: 2.537

9.  Risk estimation, anxiety, and breast cancer worry in women at risk for breast cancer: A single-arm trial of personalized risk communication.

Authors:  Zhuoer Xie; Neil Wenger; Annette L Stanton; Karen Sepucha; Celia Kaplan; Lisa Madlensky; David Elashoff; Jacqueline Trent; Antonia Petruse; Liliana Johansen; Tracy Layton; Arash Naeim
Journal:  Psychooncology       Date:  2019-09-02       Impact factor: 3.894

10.  Attitude towards pre-implantation genetic diagnosis for hereditary cancer.

Authors:  Chantal Lammens; Eveline Bleiker; Neil Aaronson; Annette Vriends; Margreet Ausems; Maaike Jansweijer; Anja Wagner; Rolf Sijmons; Ans van den Ouweland; Rob van der Luijt; Liesbeth Spruijt; Encarna Gómez García; Mariëlle Ruijs; Senno Verhoef
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2009-07-30       Impact factor: 2.375

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.