nach oben

Familial Cancer

Erschienen in:

01.03.2012 | Original Article

Patient outcomes associated with group and individual genetic counseling formats

verfasst von: Erin Rothwell, Wendy Kohlmann, Kory Jasperson, Amanda Gammon, Bob Wong, Anita Kinney

Erschienen in: Familial Cancer | Ausgabe 1/2012

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Identifying new methods to deliver cancer genetic counseling (GC) are needed to meet the growing interest in BRCA1/2 testing. The goal of this pilot feasibility study was designed to test the initial acceptability of group GC on selected patient outcomes (satisfaction, distress, perceived control) in a breast/ovarian cancer genetics clinic setting. Sixty-five participants at increased risk for hereditary breast/ovarian cancer (HBOC) agreed to participate in self-selected individual or group GC appointments. Forty-nine participants completed all study questionnaires and were included in the analyses. There were significant improvements for participants in both the individual and group GC formats with regard to perceived personal control, general psychological distress and cancer-specific psychological distress scores. Participants in both the individual and group formats reported high satisfaction scores on the Genetic Counseling Satisfaction Scale. Study results suggest that group GC may be feasible and acceptable to high-risk women.

ACS (2010) American cancer society: cancer facts and figures 2010. Author, Atlanta

USPSTF (2005) U.S. preventative services task force. Genetic risk assessment and BRCA mutation testing for breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility: recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 143:355–361

Chen S, Parmigiani G (2007) Meta-analysis of BRCA1 and BRCA2 penetrance. J Clin Oncol 25:1329–1333PubMedCrossRef

DeMarco TA et al (2004) Patient satisfaction with genetic counseling: a psychometric analysis of the genetic counseling satisfaction scale. J Genet Couns 13(4):292–304CrossRef

Bennet RL et al (2003) Genetic counselors: translating genomic science into practice. J Clin Invest 112:1274–1279

Calzone KA et al (2005) Randomized comparison of group versus individual genetic education and counseling for familial breast and/or ovarian cancer. J Clin Oncol 23(15):3455–3464PubMedCrossRef

Freedman AN et al (2003) US physicians’ attitudes toward genetic testing for cancer susceptability. Am J Med Genet A 120:63–71CrossRef

Lea DH (2006) Expanding nurses’ roles in telemedicine and genetic services. Am J Matern Child Nurs 31(3):185–189CrossRef

Braithwaite D et al (2006) Psychological impact of genetic counseling for familial cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fam Cancer 5(1):61–75PubMedCrossRef

10.

Miller S et al (2005) Enhanced counseling for women undergoing BRCA1/2 testing: impact on subsequent decision making about risk reduction behaviors. Health Educ Behav 32(5):654–667PubMedCrossRef

11.

Pieterse A et al (2005) Initial cancer genetic counseling consultation: change in counselees’ cognitions and anxiety, and association with addressing their needs and preferences. Am J Med Genet 137(1):27–35PubMedCrossRef

12.

Matloff ET et al (2006) Healthy women with a family history of breast cancer: impact of tailored genetic counseling intervention on risk perception, knowledge, and menopausal therapy decision making. J Women’s Health 15(7):843–856CrossRef

13.

Nordin K et al (2002) Coping style, psychological distress, risk perception, and satisfaction in subjects attending genetic counseling for hereditary cancer. J Med Gen 39:689–694CrossRef

14.

den Heijer M et al. (2010) The contribution of self-esteem and self-concept in psychological distress in women at risk of hereditary breast cancer. Psycho-oncology. doi:10.1002/pon.1824

15.

Lerman C et al (1997) Controlled trial of pretest education approaches to enhance informed decision-making for BRCa1 genet testing. J Natl Cancer Inst 89:148–157PubMedCrossRef

16.

Ridge Y et al (2009) Evaluation of group genetic counseling for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. J Genet Couns 18:87–100PubMedCrossRef

17.

Helmes AW, Culver JO, Bowen DJ (2006) Results of a randomized study of telephone versus in-person breast cancer risk counseling. Patient Educ Couns 64:96–103PubMedCrossRef

18.

Skinner CS et al (2002) Pre-counseling education materials for BRCA testing: does tailoring make a difference? Genet Test 6:93–105PubMedCrossRef

19.

Cull A et al (1998) The use of videotaped information in cancer genetic counseling: a randomized evaluation study. Br J Cancer 77:830–837PubMedCrossRef

20.

Green MJ et al (2001) Education about genetic testing for breast cancer susceptibility: patient preferences for a computer program or genetic counselor. Am J Med Genet 103:24–31PubMedCrossRef

21.

Burlingame GM, Fuhriman AJ, Johnson J (2004) Process and outcome in group counseling and psychotherapy: a perspective. In: DeLucia-Waack J et al (eds) Handbook of group counseling and psychotherapy. Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp 49–61

22.

Lieberman MA, Golant M, Altman T (2004) Therapeutic norms and patient benefit: cancer patients in professionally directed support groups. Group Dyn 8(4):265–276CrossRef

23.

Beck AP, Lewis CM (eds) (2000) The process of group psychotherapy. American Psychologcial Association, Washington

24.

Spiegel D, Classen C (2000) Group therapy for cancer patients: a research-based handbook of psychosocial care. Basic Books Inc Publishers, New York

25.

Shaw ME (1981) Group dynamics: the psychology of small group behavior. McGraw-Hill College, New York

26.

Wilson SR (1997) Individual versus group education: is one better? Patient Educ Couns 21(1):67–75CrossRef

27.

Shechtman Z, Toren Z (2010) The association of personal, process, and outcome variables in group counseling: testing an exploratory model. Group Dyn Theory Res Pract 14:292–303CrossRef

28.

Lerman C et al (1996) BRCA1 testing in families with hereditary breast-ovarian cancer. JAMA 275:1885–1892PubMedCrossRef

29.

Meiser B et al (2001) Long term outcomes of genetic counseling in women at increased risk of developing hereditary breast cancer. Patient Educ Couns 44:215–225PubMedCrossRef

30.

Horowitz M, Wilner N, Alvarez W (1979) Impact of event scale: a measure of subjective stress. J Psychosom Med 41:209–218

31.

Zilberg N, Weiss D, Horowitz M (1982) Impact of event scale: a cross validation study and some empirical evidence supporting a conceptual model of stress response syndromes. J Consult Clin Psychol 50(3):409–414

32.

Spiegel D et al (1999) Group psychotherapy for recently diagnosed breast cancer patients: a multicenter feasibility study. Psycho-Oncology 8:482–493PubMedCrossRef

33.

Smets EMA et al (2006) The perceived personal control questionnaire as an outcome of genetic counseling: reliability and validity of the instrument. Am J Med Genet 140A:843–850CrossRef

34.

Berkenstadt M et al (1999) Perceived personal control (PPC): a new concept for measuring outcome of genetic counseling. Am J Med Genet 94:189–197

35.

Johnston M, Pollard B, Hennessey P (2000) Construct validation of the hospital anxiety and depression scale with clinical populations. J Psychosom Res 48:579–584PubMedCrossRef

36.

Bjorvatn C et al (2008) Anxiety and depression among subjects attending genetic counseling for hereditary cancer. Patient Educ Couns 71:234–243PubMedCrossRef

37.

Mikkelsen J et al (2008) Psychosocial conditions of women awaiting genetic counseling: a population based study. J Genet Couns 17(3):242–251PubMedCrossRef

38.

Wakefield CE et al (2008) A randomized trial of a breast/ovarian cancer genetic testing decision aid used as a communication aid during genetic counseling. Psycho-Oncology 17:844–854PubMedCrossRef

39.

Tercyak KP et al (2001) Psychological response to prenatal genetic counseling and amniocentesis. Patient Educ Couns 43:73–84PubMedCrossRef

40.

Haas M (1999) A critique of patient satisfaction. Health Inf Manag 29:9–13PubMed

41.

Shiloh S et al (1997) Mediating effects of perceived personal control: the case of genetic counseling. J Appl Soc Psychol 27:1146–1174CrossRef

42.

Tercyak KP et al (2004) Women’s satisfaction with genetic counseling for hereditary breast-ovarian cancer: psychological aspects. Am J Med Genet 131:36–41PubMedCrossRef

43.

Schwartz MD et al (2002) Impact of BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation testing on psychologic distress in a clinic-based sample. J Clin Oncol 20:514–520PubMedCrossRef

44.

Bjelland I et al (2002) The validity of the hospital anxiety and depression scale; an updated literature. J Psychosom Med 52:69–77CrossRef

45.

Reichelt JG et al (2004) BRCA1 testing with definitive results: a prospective study of psychological distress in a large clinic-based sample. Familial Cancer 3:21–28PubMedCrossRef

46.

Lerman C et al (2002) Genetic testing: psychological aspects and implications. J Consult Clin Psychol 70:784–797PubMedCrossRef

47.

Berger CR (1979) Beyond initial interaction: uncertainty, understanding, and the development of interpersonal relationships. In: Giles H, St.Clair RN (eds) Language and social psychology. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp 41–67

48.

Arrington MI (2010) Theorizing about social support and health communication in a prostate cancer support group. J Psychosoc Oncol 28:260–268PubMedCrossRef

49.

Biesecker BB, Peters KF (2001) Process studies in genetic counseling: peering into the black box. Am J Med Genet 106:191–198PubMedCrossRef

50.

Wang C, Gonzales R, Merajver DS (2004) Assessment of genetic testing and related counseling services: current research and future directions. Soc Sci Med 58:1427–1442PubMedCrossRef

51.

Lepore SJ et al (2003) Improving quality of life in men with prostate cancer: a randomized controlled trial of group education interventions. Health Psychol 22:443–452PubMedCrossRef

52.

Derkx HP et al (2009) Quality of communication during telephone triage at Dutch out of hours centres. Patient Educ Couns 74:174–178PubMedCrossRef

53.

DiMatteo MR (2003) Future directions in research on consumer-provider communication and adherence to cancer prevention and treatment. Patient Educ Couns 50(1):23–26PubMedCrossRef

54.

Stewert M et al (2000) The impact of patient-centered care on outcomes. J Fam Pract 49(9):796–804

Titel: Patient outcomes associated with group and individual genetic counseling formats
verfasst von: Erin Rothwell
Wendy Kohlmann
Kory Jasperson
Amanda Gammon
Bob Wong
Anita Kinney
Publikationsdatum: 01.03.2012
Verlag: Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in: Familial Cancer / Ausgabe 1/2012
Print ISSN: 1389-9600
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-7292
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10689-011-9486-2

Springer Medizin

Patient outcomes associated with group and individual genetic counseling formats

Abstract

Neu im Fachgebiet Onkologie

Adjuvante Immuntherapie verlängert Leben bei RCC

Alectinib verbessert krankheitsfreies Überleben bei ALK-positivem NSCLC

Bei Senioren mit Prostatakarzinom auf Anämie achten!

ICI-Therapie in der Schwangerschaft wird gut toleriert

Update Onkologie

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2012

Low prevalence of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in the sporadic breast cancer of Spanish population

Evaluation of the BOADICEA risk assessment model in women with a family history of breast cancer

Implications for cancer genetics practice of pro-actively assessing family history in a General Practice cohort in North West London

A pre-visit tailored website enhances counselees’ realistic expectations and knowledge and fulfils information needs for breast cancer genetic counselling

Uptake of a randomized breast cancer prevention trial comparing letrozole to placebo in BRCA1/2 mutations carriers: the LIBER trial

Familial renal cancer as an indicator of hereditary leiomyomatosis and renal cell cancer syndrome

Neu im Fachgebiet Onkologie

Adjuvante Immuntherapie verlängert Leben bei RCC

Alectinib verbessert krankheitsfreies Überleben bei ALK-positivem NSCLC

Bei Senioren mit Prostatakarzinom auf Anämie achten!

ICI-Therapie in der Schwangerschaft wird gut toleriert

Update Onkologie