Breast and Ovarian Cancer: A New Model For Educating Women

Mangerich, Beverly; Stichler, Jaynelle F.

doi:10.1111/j.1751-486x.2008.00383.x

Cited by 3 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Group GC models involve an informative group session that may or may not be followed by brief one-on-one GC. Six articles were identified, including four North American studies and two European studies ( Table 3 ) [ 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 ]. All six used group GC models for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer, two of which were limited to Ashkenazi Jewish individuals [ 52 , 54 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Importantly, a non-inferiority trial assessing the use of a group DVD GC session followed by individualized GC demonstrated group GC to be non-inferior with respect to knowledge, risk perception, and GC satisfaction measures [ 52 ]. Three additional studies assessed knowledge scores [ 49 , 51 , 53 ], and only Rothwell et al did not observe significantly improved knowledge scores; however, this was attributed to high baseline knowledge scores [ 51 ]. Rothwell et al also assessed psychosocial outcomes, and found that both traditional and group GC increased perceived personal control, decreased cancer-specific distress, and improved depression, with no significant differences between the two groups [ 51 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Two studies found that many women prefer individual to group GC [ 50 , 51 ]; however, in a retrospective study of low-risk Ashkenazi Jewish individuals, only 8% reported a preference for traditional GC [ 54 ]. Time was assessed in five studies [ 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 ], and cost was assessed in two [ 49 , 52 ]. In studies providing direct comparisons to a traditional GC model, notable time-saving was reported for the group GC model [ 51 , 52 , 53 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In studies providing direct comparisons to a traditional GC model, notable time-saving was reported for the group GC model [ 51 , 52 , 53 ]. Two studies extrapolated the GC time to demonstrate a cost benefit to the group GC [ 49 , 52 ]. Two studies examining the uptake of GT reported discrepant results, with Rothwell et al reporting a significantly lower uptake after group GC [ 51 ], and Manchanda et al reporting equivalent GT rates [ 52 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Next-Generation Service Delivery: A Scoping Review of Patient Outcomes Associated with Alternative Models of Genetic Counseling and Genetic Testing for Hereditary Cancer

McCuaig

Armel

Care

et al. 2018

Cancers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The combination of increased referral for genetic testing and the current shortage of genetic counselors has necessitated the development and implementation of alternative models of genetic counseling and testing for hereditary cancer assessment. The purpose of this scoping review is to provide an overview of the patient outcomes that are associated with alternative models of genetic testing and genetic counseling for hereditary cancer, including germline-only and tumor testing models. Seven databases were searched, selecting studies that were: (1) full-text articles published ≥2007 or conference abstracts published ≥2015, and (2) assessing patient outcomes of an alternative model of genetic counseling or testing. A total of 79 publications were included for review and synthesis. Data-charting was completed using a data-charting form that was developed by the study team for this review. Seven alternative models were identified, including four models that involved a genetic counselor: telephone, telegenic, group, and embedded genetic counseling models; and three models that did not: mainstreaming, direct, and tumor-first genetic testing models. Overall, these models may be an acceptable alternative to traditional models on knowledge, patient satisfaction, psychosocial measures, and the uptake of genetic testing; however, particular populations may be better served by traditional in-person genetic counseling. As precision medicine initiatives continue to advance, institutions should consider the implementation of new models of genetic service delivery, utilizing a model that will best serve the needs of their unique patient populations.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Next-Generation Service Delivery: A Scoping Review of Patient Outcomes Associated with Alternative Models of Genetic Counseling and Genetic Testing for Hereditary Cancer

McCuaig

Armel

Care

et al. 2018

Cancers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although unaffected patients may differ from those with a personal history of cancer, other studies of affected patients have shown positive outcomes from group sessions (Benusiglio et al., 2017; Rothwell et al., 2012). Finally, this study did not include economic analyses of the traditional and group GC models; however, a previous study has reported cost‐savings with the group model (Mangerich & Stichler, 2008).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Large‐scale group genetic counseling: Evaluation of a novel service delivery model in a Canadian hereditary cancer clinic

Lohn

Fok

Richardson

et al. 2021

Journal of Genetic Counseling

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Increasing demand for genetic services has led to the development of streamlined genetic counseling (GC) models. We piloted large-scale group pre-test GC with up to 50 patients per group and compared this to a traditional one-on-one approach.Patients referred to the British Columbia (BC) Cancer Hereditary Cancer Program were eligible if they had: (a) family history meeting our program's referral criteria; (b) no relevant personal history of cancer; (c) no prior genetic testing in the family; and (d) no living testable relative in BC. Patient-reported outcome measures included: (a) Genetic Counselling Outcome Scale (GCOS) prior to pre-test GC (T1) and at 4 weeks post-test GC (T2); (b) Satisfaction Survey after pre-test GC; and (c) the Multidimensional Impact of Cancer Risk Assessment (MICRA) for patients undergoing testing (4 weeks after post-test GC). In total, 391 patients underwent GC, 184 by group and 207 by one-on-one appointments. Between May 2018 and May 2019, 6pre-test group sessions were conducted (median number of patients per group = 28; range 15-48). 8% of patients (n = 32) declined large group GC due to personal preference for one-on-one GC. There were no statistically significant differences in MICRA and GCOS survey results when comparing the pre-test large group versus traditional pre-test one-on-one models (based on 3 MICRA subscales: p = 0.063, p = 0.612, p = 0.842; and GCOS p = 0.169). Overall, the large group pre-test counseling approach was more time-efficient with 15-48 patient group sessions conducted over a mean duration of 80 min as compared to 42 min per patient with the traditional one-on-one GC model. Large-scale group GC was feasible and acceptable to patients and represents a novel streamlined model for GC to enable timely access to cancer genetic services.

show abstract

Adapting Genetic Counseling Practice to Different Models of Service Delivery

Trepanier

Allain

2020

Genetic Counseling Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Breast and Ovarian Cancer: A New Model For Educating Women

Cited by 3 publications

References 25 publications

Next-Generation Service Delivery: A Scoping Review of Patient Outcomes Associated with Alternative Models of Genetic Counseling and Genetic Testing for Hereditary Cancer

Next-Generation Service Delivery: A Scoping Review of Patient Outcomes Associated with Alternative Models of Genetic Counseling and Genetic Testing for Hereditary Cancer

Large‐scale group genetic counseling: Evaluation of a novel service delivery model in a Canadian hereditary cancer clinic

Adapting Genetic Counseling Practice to Different Models of Service Delivery

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About