We conclude that the SDMI improved decision making in unaffected BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. Supporting decision making in a systematic way using trade-offs is beneficial for these women.

The aim of the study was to evaluate the impact of a decision aid (DA) and its timing in women being tested for a BRCA1/2 mutation. Women with and without a previous history of cancer were included after blood sampling for genetic testing. The DA consisted of a brochure and video providing information on screening and prophylactic surgery. To evaluate the impact of the DA, women were randomised to the DA group (n ¼ 184), receiving the DA 2 weeks after blood sampling, or to the control group (n ¼ 184). To evaluate the impact of timing, mutation carriers who had received the DA before the test result (n ¼ 47) were compared to mutation carriers who received the DA after the test result (n ¼ 42). Data were collected on well-being, treatment choice, decision and information related outcomes. The impact of the DA was measured 4 weeks after blood sampling. The impact of timing was measured 2 weeks after a positive test result. The DA had no impact on well-being. Regarding decision related outcomes, the DA group more frequently considered prophylactic surgery (P ¼ 0.02) corroborated with higher valuations (P ¼ 0.04). No differences were found for the other decision related outcomes. Regarding information related outcomes, the DA group felt better informed (P ¼ 0.00), was more satisfied with the information (P ¼ 0.00), and showed more accurate risk perceptions. Timing of the DA had no effect on any of the outcomes. No interactions were found between the DA and history of cancer. In conclusion, women being tested for a BRCA1/2 mutation benefit from the DA on information related outcomes. Because timing had no effect, the DA is considered useful either before or after the test result.

To evaluate the impact of BRCA1/2 testing and disclosure of a positive test result on women affected and unaffected with cancer. Longitudinal cohort study including women affected and unaffected with breast or ovarian cancer testing for a BRCA1/2 mutation. Data on well-being (anxiety, depression, cancer related distress, general health), treatment choice, and decision making about cancer prevention were collected at baseline (1 week after blood sampling; affected n = 192, unaffected n = 176) and at follow-up (2 weeks after disclosure of a positive test result; affected n = 23, unaffected n = 66). Women affected and unaffected with breast or ovarian cancer were compared using univariate statistics. Change over time was examined using repeated measures analysis of variance. With respect to well-being, affected women scored worse at baseline. At follow-up, both affected and unaffected women experienced a decline in well-being, which tended to be stronger in affected women. Women diagnosed with cancer less than 1 year previously tended to report a worse well-being than those diagnosed longer ago. With respect to treatment choice, more affected women intended to obtain prophylactic surgery and valued it higher at both time points. With respect to decision making, affected women had a lower preference for participation in decision making at baseline; no differences were found at follow-up. At follow-up, both affected and unaffected women showed an increase in strength of treatment preference and a decrease in decision uncertainty. Disclosure of a positive test result had a negative impact on well-being. Affected women, especially those who have been recently diagnosed with cancer, experienced the worst well-being and could benefit from psychosocial support.

There are several instruments to assess how patients evaluate their medical treatment choice. These are used to evaluate decision aids. Our objective is to investigate which psychological factors play a role when patients evaluate their medical treatment choices. A pool of 36 items was constructed, covering concepts such as uncertainty about and satisfaction with the decision, informed choice, effective decision making, responsibility for the decision, perceived riskiness of the choice, and social support regarding the decision. This pool was presented to patients at high risk for breast and ovarian cancer, awaiting a genetic test result, and facing the choice between prophylactic surgery or screening. Additional measures were assessed for validation purposes. Factor and Rasch analyses were used for factor and item selection. Construct validity of emerging scales was assessed by relating them with the additional measures. Three factors summarised the psychological factors concerning decision evaluation: Satisfaction-Uncertainty, Informed Choice, and Decision Control. Reliabilities (Cronbach's a) of the three scales were 0.79, 0.85, and 0.75, respectively. Construct validity hypotheses were confirmed. The first two scales were similar to previously developed scales. Of these three scales, the Decision Control scale correlated most strongly with the well-being measures, was associated with partner's agreement and physician's preferences as perceived by patients, and with a negative emotional reaction to the information material. In conclusion, the Decision Control scale is a new scale to evaluate decision aids, and it appears to be rooted in health psychological theories.

Women seem to decide at a relatively early stage about their risk-management preferences. Many of them may be sensitive to the possibility of regret in case of a bad outcome. We discuss whether possible regret in the future is a rational reason for opting for prophylactic mastectomy, or whether it signifies an emotional coping process or strategy in which the future costs are no longer fully considered.

PMPO is the most effective strategy to prolong life. However, if patient preferences were taken into account, BSPO tends to be a better strategy in most women at medium risk or in young women at high risk when PO was performed before age 40.

No abstract

Objective: To investigate the quality of antibiotic prescribing in primary care using quality indicators and the relatedness of these indicators. To determine the influence of general practice and practice population characteristics on the indicator scores. Methods: Data on performance were collected during the Second National Survey of General Practice over 1 year between May 2000 and April 2002 in The Netherlands. The study was carried out in 104 computerised general practices, comprising 195 general practitioners and about 400 000 patients. From a preliminary set of quality indicators on antibiotic prescribing (n = 15), eight were selected covering various medical conditions. Indicator scores were derived. A factor analysis was performed to examine the relatedness of these indicators. Composite scores were calculated for the indicators loading on the same factor. The influence of general practice and practice population characteristics on the quality of antibiotic prescribing was investigated. Results: Considerable variation was found between indicator scores (32.8-94.2%) and between practices. The factor analysis discovered two interpretable factors-namely, ''first choice prescribing'' and ''restrictive prescribing''. The composite scores were 64% and 68%, respectively. No significant correlation was found between the two composite scores. Practice and population characteristics explained only a small proportion of the variance between practices. Conclusions: Although different quality indicators on antibiotic prescribing are grouped together over several medical conditions, there is large variation between those indicators. General practices performing well on first choice prescribing do not automatically perform well on restrictive prescribing. There is room for improvement on both aspects of prescribing. The variation between practices is clearly present and should be further investigated.