Skip to main content
main-content

16.06.2017 | Original Article | Ausgabe 1/2018 Open Access

Familial Cancer 1/2018

Use of the BOADICEA Web Application in clinical practice: appraisals by clinicians from various countries

Zeitschrift:
Familial Cancer > Ausgabe 1/2018
Autoren:
Anne Brédart, Jean-Luc Kop, Antonis C. Antoniou, Alex P. Cunningham, Antoine De Pauw, Marc Tischkowitz, Hans Ehrencrona, Sylvie Dolbeault, Léonore Robieux, Kerstin Rhiem, Douglas F. Easton, Peter Devilee, Dominique Stoppa-Lyonnet, Rita Schmutlzer
Wichtige Hinweise

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.​1007/​s10689-017-0014-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
The original version of this article was revised due to a retrospective Open Access order.
A correction to this article is available online at https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10689-017-0051-5.

Abstract

The ‘BOADICEA’ Web Application (BWA) used to assess breast cancer risk, is currently being further developed, to integrate additional genetic and non-genetic factors. We surveyed clinicians’ perceived acceptability of the existing BWA v3. An online survey was conducted through the BOADICEA website, and the British, Dutch, French and Swedish genetics societies. Cross-sectional data from 443 participants who provided at least 50% responses were analysed. Respondents varied in age and, clinical seniority, but mainly comprised women (77%) and genetics professionals (82%). Some expressed negative opinions about the scientific validity of BOADICEA (9%) and BWA v3 risk presentations (7–9%). Data entry time (62%), clinical utility (22%) and ease of communicating BWA v3 risks (13–17%) received additional negative appraisals. In multivariate analyses, controlling for gender and country, data entry time was perceived as longer by genetic counsellors than clinical geneticists (p < 0.05). Respondents who (1) considered hormonal BC risk factors as more important (p < 0.01), and (2) communicated numerical risk estimates more frequently (p < 0.001), judged BWA v3 of lower clinical utility. Respondents who carried out less frequent clinical activity (p < 0.01) and respondents with ‘11 to 15 years’ seniority (p < 0.01) had less favourable opinions of BWA v3 risk presentations. Seniority of ‘6 to 10 years’ (p < 0.05) and more frequent numerical risk communication (p < 0.05) were associated with higher fear of communicating the BWA v3 risks to patients. The level of genetics training did not affect opinions. Further development of BWA should consider technological, genetics service delivery and training initiatives.

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

★ PREMIUM-INHALT
e.Med Interdisziplinär

Mit e.Med Interdisziplinär erhalten Sie Zugang zu allen CME-Fortbildungen und Fachzeitschriften auf SpringerMedizin.de. Zusätzlich können Sie eine Zeitschrift Ihrer Wahl in gedruckter Form beziehen – ohne Aufpreis.

Bis zum 22.10. bestellen und 100 € sparen!

Weitere Produktempfehlungen anzeigen
Zusatzmaterial
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 188 KB)
10689_2017_14_MOESM1_ESM.pdf
Literatur
Über diesen Artikel

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2018

Familial Cancer 1/2018Zur Ausgabe
  1. Das kostenlose Testabonnement läuft nach 14 Tagen automatisch und formlos aus. Dieses Abonnement kann nur einmal getestet werden.