Does enhanced information at cancer genetic counseling improve counselees’ knowledge, risk perception, satisfaction and negotiation of information to at-risk relatives? – a randomized study

Purpose. The aim of the present randomized intervention study was to investigate the effect of receiving extended cancer genetic information on counselees’ knowledge, risk perception, information sharing and satisfaction with the service. Methods. In total, 147 counselees, affected by cancer and/or a family history of cancer, were randomized to extended or standard information. The levels of counselees’ knowledge and personal risk estimations were measured at four time points. In addition, counselees’ satisfaction with the counseling and sharing of the information to at-risk relatives was assessed. The intervention included meeting a specialist nurse, learning the breaking bad news method, receiving written material and video-taped counseling sessions. Results. A significant increase in the level of knowledge in participants in the “breast cancer group” regardless of the randomization was observed over time. The correct estimation of personal risk increased significantly in both groups after two weeks, but declined at the eight month follow-up. Most of the participants had informed at-risk relatives about their visit at the cancer genetic clinic. The majority of respondents in both groups were highly satisfied with the counseling. The only observed effects of the intervention were that counselees in the intervention group were significantly more satisfied with the content of the given information and with the way of informing relatives. Conclusion. Apparently, the current genetic counseling is managed properly and extended information does not seem necessary in all cases. However, some counselees need additional sessions.

[1]  Suzanne M. Miller,et al.  Intention to communicate BRCA1/BRCA2 genetic test results to the family. , 2008, Journal of family psychology : JFP : journal of the Division of Family Psychology of the American Psychological Association.

[2]  A. Edwards,et al.  Interventions to improve risk communication in clinical genetics: systematic review. , 2008, Patient education and counseling.

[3]  T. Rebbeck,et al.  Factors determining dissemination of results and uptake of genetic testing in families with known BRCA1/2 mutations. , 2008, Genetic testing.

[4]  D. Amor,et al.  Increased genetic counseling support improves communication of genetic information in families , 2008, Genetics in Medicine.

[5]  G. Eide,et al.  Risk Perception, Worry and Satisfaction Related to Genetic Counseling for Hereditary Cancer , 2007, Journal of Genetic Counseling.

[6]  H. Meijers-Heijboer,et al.  Long Term Follow-up of HNPCC Gene Mutation Carriers: Compliance with Screening and Satisfaction with Counseling and Screening Procedures , 2005, Familial Cancer.

[7]  C. Griffin,et al.  Assessment of the Use and Feasibility of Video to Supplement the Genetic Counseling Process: A Cancer Genetic Counseling Perspective , 2005, Journal of Genetic Counseling.

[8]  M. Greene,et al.  Hereditary breast/ovarian and colorectal cancer genetics knowledge in a national sample of US physicians , 2005, Journal of Medical Genetics.

[9]  P. Butow,et al.  Communication and information-giving in high-risk breast cancer consultations: influence on patient outcomes , 2004, British Journal of Cancer.

[10]  H. Valdimarsdottir,et al.  Biased cognitive processing of cancer-related information among women with family histories of breast cancer: evidence from a cancer stroop task. , 2003, Health psychology : official journal of the Division of Health Psychology, American Psychological Association.

[11]  R. Eeles,et al.  Balancing autonomy and responsibility: the ethics of generating and disclosing genetic information , 2003, Journal of medical ethics.

[12]  R. Rosenquist,et al.  Coping style, psychological distress, risk perception, and satisfaction in subjects attending genetic counselling for hereditary cancer , 2002, Journal of medical genetics.

[13]  S. Sutton,et al.  No news is (not necessarily) good news: Impact of preliminary results for BRCA1 mutation searches , 2002, Genetics in Medicine.

[14]  T. T. Haug,et al.  The validity of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. An updated literature review. , 2002, Journal of psychosomatic research.

[15]  N. Hallowell,et al.  The value of written summaries of genetic consultations. , 1998, Patient education and counseling.

[16]  P. Symonds,et al.  Information needs of cancer patients in west Scotland: cross sectional survey of patients' views , 1996, BMJ.

[17]  A. Howell,et al.  The impact of genetic counselling on risk perception in women with a family history of breast cancer. , 1994, British Journal of Cancer.

[18]  R. Buckman How to break bad news : a guide for health care professionals , 1992 .

[19]  C. Blomstrand,et al.  Spinal Cord Injuries: Clinical, Functional, and Emotional Status , 1991 .

[20]  S. Waisbren,et al.  The development of a patient knowledge test on maternal phenylketonuria. , 1990, Patient education and counseling.

[21]  J. Weinman Providing Written Information for Patients: Psychological Considerations , 1990, Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine.

[22]  Huston Gj,et al.  The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. , 1987, The Journal of rheumatology.

[23]  F. Craik,et al.  Levels of processing: A framework for memory research , 1972 .

[24]  J. Emery,et al.  Psychological Impact of Genetic Counseling for Familial Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis , 2005, Familial Cancer.

[25]  W P McKinney,et al.  Educating patients with limited literacy skills: the effectiveness of printed and videotaped materials about colon cancer. , 1994, American journal of public health.