Psychological predictors of cancer patients' and their relatives’ attitudes towards the return of genomic sequencing results

Meiser, Bettina; Butow, Phyllis; Davies, Grace; Napier, Christine E.; Schlub, Timothy E.; Bartley, Nicci; Juraskova, Ilona; Ballinger, Mandy L.; Thomas, David M.; Best, Megan

doi:10.1016/j.ejmg.2022.104516

Cited by 2 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 53 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Also, where specified, much of the available data were based on well-educated patients of European descent (or "non-Hispanic White"). 17,18,21,22,[26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33] Additionally, evaluation of populations in two review articles showed an underrepresentation of other ethnic and minority groups, which was also supported by author statements in these publications. 30,33,[35][36][37][38][39] Patients were interested in receiving information on different types of cBT results, especially those impacting their own and their children and relatives' health.…”

Section: Search Outcomesmentioning

confidence: 69%

“…17,18,21,22,[26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33] Additionally, evaluation of populations in two review articles showed an underrepresentation of other ethnic and minority groups, which was also supported by author statements in these publications. 30,33,[35][36][37][38][39] Patients were interested in receiving information on different types of cBT results, especially those impacting their own and their children and relatives' health. [17][18][19]28,30,32,33,36,38,40 However, four studies implied that interest in receiving information on variants of uncertain significance (VUSs) was variable or even absent, depending on the context and understanding of VUS implications.…”

Section: Search Outcomesmentioning

confidence: 69%

“…The cancer type was mostly unspecified (20; 47.6%) or patients with different types of cancer were included in the study (13; 31.0%) (Table 2; Table S1). Also, where specified, much of the available data were based on well‐educated patients of European descent (or “non‐Hispanic White”) 17,18,21,22,26–33 . Additionally, evaluation of populations in two review articles showed an underrepresentation of other ethnic and minority groups, which was also supported by author statements in these publications 34,35 …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 91%

“…Despite heterogeneity in research design and context (i.e., clinical care or precision oncology research), some common themes emerged from the included studies. Patients were motivated to undergo cBT to learn more about their disease, about targeted and experimental treatment options, and to promote cancer research 30,33,35–39 . Patients were interested in receiving information on different types of cBT results, especially those impacting their own and their children and relatives' health 17–19,28,30,32,33,36,38,40 .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The Netherlands 4 (9.5) 17,26,40,51 France 3 (7.1) 11, 41,44 Other (Belgium, Germany) 3 (7.1) 7,12,39 EMR Saudi Arabia 1 (2.4) 62 Study design Qualitative 10 (23.8) 12,17,[19][20][21]26,[36][37][38]53 Quantitative 7 (16.7) 18,27,28,43,50,51,80 Combined-qualitative and quantitative a 8 (19.0) [29][30][31][32][33][47][48][49] Other b 17 (40.5) 7,11,22,34,35,[39][40][41][42][44][45][46]52,54,55,61,…”

Section: Eurmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Understanding communication between patients and healthcare professionals regarding comprehensive biomarker testing in precision oncology: A scoping review

Pichler,

Mumm,

Dehar

et al. 2024

Cancer Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundPrecision oncology, using comprehensive biomarker testing (cBT) to inform individual cancer diagnosis, prognosis and treatment, includes increasingly complex technology and clinical data sets. People impacted by cancer (patients and caregivers) and healthcare professionals (HCPs) face distinct challenges in navigating the cBT and personalized treatment landscape. This review summarizes evidence regarding cBT‐related communication between people impacted by cancer and HCPs and identifies important avenues for future research in precision oncology.MethodsA scoping review was conducted using records published in PubMed during January 2017–August 2022, focusing on the breadth of topics on patient‐HCP communication and knowledge resources used by HCPs as guidance in cBT‐related communication. Data were extracted from records meeting inclusion criteria, and findings were summarized according to main topics.ResultsThe search identified 287 unique records and data were extracted from 42 records, including nine from expert input. Most records originated from the United States included patients with different types of cancer, and oncologists were the main HCPs. Patients' motivation for undergoing cBT and receiving results was generally high in different settings. However, patients' understanding of cBT‐related concepts was limited, and their knowledge and information preferences changed based on cBT implications and significance to family members. HCPs were valued by patients as a trusted source of information. Limited evidence was available on HCPs' information‐seeking behavior and factors influencing cBT‐related knowledge and confidence, often self‐reported as insufficient.ConclusionsPatient education by knowledgeable and confident HCPs, information management and a caring patient‐HCP relationship communicating continuity of care regardless of cBT results are crucial to empower patients and shared decision‐making in precision oncology. More data on the process and structure of cBT‐related communication, distinction between and characterization of different timepoints of patient‐HCP interactions are needed.

show abstract