Evaluation of mailed results versus telephone disclosure of normal cancer genetic test results in a low-risk underserved population

被引:0
|
作者
Gilmore, Marian J. [1 ]
Leo, Michael C. [2 ]
Amendola, Laura M. [3 ]
Goddard, Katrina A. B. [1 ]
Hunter, Jessica Ezzell [1 ,4 ]
Joseph, Galen [5 ]
Kauffman, Tia L. [2 ]
Rolf, Bradley [6 ]
Shuster, Elizabeth [2 ]
Zepp, Jamilyn M. [1 ]
Wilfond, Benjamin S. [7 ,8 ]
Biesecker, Barbara B. [9 ]
机构
[1] Kaiser Permanente Ctr Hlth Res, Dept Translat & Appl Genom, 3800 N Interstate Ave, Portland, OR 97227 USA
[2] Kaiser Permanente Ctr Hlth Res, Portland, OR 97227 USA
[3] Illumina Inc, Med Genom Res, San Diego, CA USA
[4] RTI Int, Genom Eth & Translat Res Program, Res Triangle Pk, NC USA
[5] Univ Calif San Francisco, Sch Med, Dept Humanities & Social Sci, San Francisco, CA USA
[6] Univ Washington, Dept Med, Div Med Genet, Seattle, WA USA
[7] Seattle Childrens Res Inst, Treuman Katz Ctr Pediat Bioeth, Seattle, WA USA
[8] Univ Washington, Dept Pediat, Sch Med, Seattle, WA USA
[9] RTI Int, Analyt, Washington, DC USA
关键词
genetic counseling; normal test results; patient understanding; test-related feelings; patient satisfaction; alternative result delivery model; DELIVERY; DIVERSE; TRIAL;
D O I
10.1093/tbm/ibad084
中图分类号
R1 [预防医学、卫生学];
学科分类号
1004 ; 120402 ;
摘要
Scalable models for result disclosure are needed to ensure large-scale access to genomics services. Research evaluating alternatives to genetic counseling suggests effectiveness; however, it is unknown whether these findings are generalizable across populations. We assessed whether a letter is non-inferior to telephone genetic counseling to inform participants with no personal or family history of cancer of their normal results. Data were collected via self-report surveys before and after result disclosure (at 1 and 6 months) in a study sample enriched for individuals from underserved populations. Primary outcomes were subjective understanding of results (global and aggregated) and test-related feelings, ascertained via three subscales (uncertainty, negative emotions, and positive feelings) of the Feelings About genomiC Testing Results (FACToR) measure. Secondary outcomes related to satisfaction with communication. Non-inferiority tests compared outcomes among disclosure methods. Communication by letter was inferior in terms of global subjective understanding of results (at 1 month) and non-inferior to telephoned results (at 6 months). Letter was non-inferior to telephone for aggregated understanding (at 6 months). Letter was superior (at 1 month) to telephone on the uncertainty FACToR subscale. Letter was non-inferior to telephone on the positive-feelings FACToR subscale (at 6 months). Letter was non-inferior to telephone for satisfaction with mode of result delivery and genetic test results. Communication via letter was inferior to telephone in communicating the "right amount of information." The use of written communication to relay normal results to low-risk individuals is a promising strategy that may improve the efficiency of care delivery. We report results of a non-inferiority study evaluating a mailed letter for genetic test-result disclosure, as opposed to a telephone call, in a diverse population. This analysis provides evidence of the acceptability of a mailed letter for disclosing normal genetic test results in low-risk individuals. Genetic counseling services delivered in the usual way-during clinic visits-can take up a lot of time for patients and genetic counselors. Alternatives to this practice have been studied among genetic counseling patients to spare genetic counselors' time and expand access and flexibility for patients. Yet, in these studies, the participants have lacked diversity. So, it is not known how these research findings pertain to all populations. In this study, we looked at the use of an alternative care model, a mailed letter, for sharing normal genetic test results with study participants from underserved populations. We tested whether patients viewed the mailed letter as no worse than a telephone conversation with a genetic counselor, which has been shown to be well received by patients. We learned that study participants felt they understood their results, were not distressed to receive the results, and were satisfied with how their results were delivered. Lastly, we found that participants were more satisfied with the amount of information provided about their test results during the telephone conversation compared with the mailed letter. This study provides new information about different ways to deliver test results to individuals receiving genetic services.
引用
收藏
页码:377 / 385
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Considerations for the Telephone Disclosure of Genetic Test Results to Patients With Cancer
    Mahon, Suzanne M.
    CLINICAL JOURNAL OF ONCOLOGY NURSING, 2020, 24 (01) : 8 - 8
  • [2] Development of a Communication Protocol for Telephone Disclosure of Genetic Test Results for Cancer Predisposition
    Patrick-Miller, Linda J.
    Egleston, Brian L.
    Fetzer, Dominique
    Forman, Andrea
    Bealin, Lisa
    Rybak, Christina
    Peterson, Candace
    Corbman, Melanie
    Albarracin, Julio
    Stevens, Evelyn
    Daly, Mary B.
    Bradbury, Angela R.
    JMIR RESEARCH PROTOCOLS, 2014, 3 (04):
  • [3] Telephone disclosure of BRCAI/2 test results: a survey of genetic counselors.
    Bradbury, A. R.
    Patrick-Miller, L.
    Cummings, S. A.
    Fetzer, D.
    Daly, M.
    CANCER RESEARCH, 2009, 69 (02) : 135S - 135S
  • [4] Randomized Noninferiority Trial of Telephone vs In-Person Disclosure of Germline Cancer Genetic Test Results
    Bradbury, Angela R.
    Patrick-Miller, Linda J.
    Egleston, Brian L.
    Hall, Michael J.
    Domchek, Susan M.
    Daly, Mary B.
    Ganschow, Pamela
    Grana, Generosa
    Olopade, Olufunmilayo I.
    Fetzer, Dominique
    Brandt, Amanda
    Chambers, Rachelle
    Clark, Dana F.
    Forman, Andrea
    Gaber, Rikki
    Gulden, Cassandra
    Horte, Janice
    Long, Jessica M.
    Lucas, Terra
    Madaan, Shreshtha
    Mattie, Kristin
    McKenna, Danielle
    Montgomery, Susan
    Nielsen, Sarah
    Powers, Jacquelyn
    Rainey, Kim
    Rybak, Christina
    Savage, Michelle
    Seelaus, Christina
    Stoll, Jessica
    Stopfer, Jill E.
    Yao, Xinxin
    JNCI-JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE, 2018, 110 (09): : 985 - 993
  • [5] Providing HIV-negative results to low-risk clients by telephone
    Conway, Damian P.
    Healey, Loretta M.
    Rauwendaal, Evert
    Templeton, David J.
    Davies, Stephen C.
    SEXUAL HEALTH, 2012, 9 (02) : 160 - 165
  • [6] Extended follow-up in the COGENT study: A randomized study of in-person versus telephone disclosure of cancer genetic test results.
    Bradbury, Angela R.
    Patrick-Miller, Linda J.
    Egleston, Brian L.
    Domchek, Susan M.
    Olopade, Olufunmilayo I.
    Hall, Michael J.
    Daly, Mary Beryl
    Fleisher, Linda
    Grana, Generosa
    Ganschow, Pamela
    Fetzer, Dominique
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2017, 35
  • [7] Patient-reported outcomes in a multicenter randomized study of in-person versus telephone disclosure of genetic test results for cancer susceptibility.
    Bradbury, Angela R.
    Patrick-Miller, Linda. J.
    Egleston, Brian L.
    Olopade, Olufunmilayo I.
    Hall, Michael J.
    Daly, Mary Beryl
    Fleisher, Linda
    Grana, Generosa
    Ganschow, Pamela
    Fetzer, Dominique
    Domchek, Susan M.
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2016, 34 (15)
  • [8] Risk Factors Associated with False Positive HIV Test Results in a Low-Risk Urban Obstetric Population
    Chao, Tamara T.
    Sheffield, Jeanne S.
    Wendel, George D., Jr.
    Ansari, M. Qasim
    McIntire, Donald D.
    Roberts, Scott W.
    JOURNAL OF PREGNANCY, 2012, 2012
  • [9] Preferences for in-person disclosure: Patients declining telephone disclosure characteristics and outcomes in the multicenter Communication Of GENetic Test Results by Telephone study
    Beri, Nina
    Patrick-Miller, Linda J.
    Egleston, Brian L.
    Hall, Michael J.
    Domchek, Susan M.
    Daly, Mary B.
    Ganschow, Pamela
    Grana, Generosa
    Olopade, Olufunmilayo I.
    Fetzer, Dominique
    Brandt, Amanda
    Chambers, Rachelle
    Clark, Dana F.
    Forman, Andrea
    Gaber, Rikki
    Gulden, Cassandra
    Horte, Janice
    Long, Jessica
    Lucas, Terra
    Madaan, Shreshtha
    Mattie, Kristin
    McKenna, Danielle
    Montgomery, Susan
    Nielsen, Sarah
    Powers, Jacquelyn
    Rainey, Kim
    Rybak, Christina
    Savage, Michelle
    Seelaus, Christina
    Stoll, Jessica
    Stopfer, Jill E.
    Yao, Xinxin
    Bradbury, Angela R.
    CLINICAL GENETICS, 2019, 95 (02) : 293 - 301
  • [10] BLADDER-CANCER IN A LOW-RISK POPULATION - RESULTS FROM THE ADVENTIST HEALTH STUDY
    MILLS, PK
    BEESON, WL
    PHILLIPS, RL
    FRASER, GE
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY, 1991, 133 (03) : 230 - 239