Abstract
Background
Despite the use of genetic services, counselees do not always share hereditary cancer information with at-risk relatives. Reasons for not informing relatives may be categorized as a lack of: knowledge, motivation, and/or self-efficacy.
Purpose
This study aims to develop and test the psychometric properties of the Informing Relatives Inventory, a battery of instruments that intend to measure counselees’ knowledge, motivation, and self-efficacy regarding the disclosure of hereditary cancer risk information to at-risk relatives.
Method
Guided by the proposed conceptual framework, existing instruments were selected and new instruments were developed. We tested the instruments’ acceptability, dimensionality, reliability, and criterion-related validity in consecutive index patients visiting the Clinical Genetics department with questions regarding hereditary breast and/or ovarian cancer or colon cancer.
Results
Data of 211 index patients were included (response rate = 62 %). The Informing Relatives Inventory (IRI) assesses three barriers in disclosure representing seven domains. Instruments assessing index patients’ (positive) motivation and self-efficacy were acceptable and reliable and suggested good criterion-related validity. Psychometric properties of instruments assessing index patients knowledge were disputable. These items were moderately accepted by index patients and the criterion-related validity was weaker.
Conclusion
This study presents a first conceptual framework and associated inventory (IRI) that improves insight into index patients’ barriers regarding the disclosure of genetic cancer information to at-risk relatives. Instruments assessing (positive) motivation and self-efficacy proved to be reliable measurements. Measuring index patients knowledge appeared to be more challenging. Further research is necessary to ensure IRI’s dimensionality and sensitivity to change.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
To address problems of non-response emerging in batch 1, the instruments for positive and negative motivation were adjusted. First, six items were removed based on high inter-correlations (>0.3). Next, deviating answer categories of ten items (makes informing harder/easier) were adjusted so they were comparable with the remaining items (plays a role in disclosure decision). No differences in score distribution (Kolmogorov-Smirnov test) and means (Mann–Whitney U test) were found between batches 1 and 2 on these items. Therefore, data were combined.
Abbreviations
- FA:
-
factor analysis
- IRI:
-
Informing Relatives Inventory
- RMSEA:
-
root mean square error of estimation
References
Godard B, Hurlimann T, Letendre M, Egalite N. Guidelines for disclosing genetic information to family members: from development to use. Fam Cancer. 2006;5:103–16.
Stichting Opsporing Erfelijke Tumoren, Vereniging Klinische Genetica Nederland. Erfelijke tumoren, richtlijnen voor diagnostiek en preventie 2010. 2010.
Vink GR, van Asperen CJ, Devilee P, Breuning MH, Bakker E. Unclassified variants in disease-causing genes: nonuniformity of genetic testing and counselling, a proposal for guidelines. Eur J Hum Genet. 2005;13:525–7.
Dancyger C, Wiseman M, Jacobs C, Smith JA, Wallace M, Michie S. Communicating BRCA1/2 genetic test results within the family: a qualitative analysis. Psychol Health. 2011;26:1018–35. doi:10.1080/08870446.2010.525640.
Hughes C, Lerman C, Schwartz M, et al. All in the family: evaluation of the process and content of sisters’ communication about BRCA1 and BRCA2 genetic test results. Am J Med Genet. 2002;107:143–50.
McGivern B, Everett J, Yager GG, Baumiller RC, Hafertepen A, Saal HM. Family communication about positive BRCA1 and BRCA2 genetic test results. Genet Med. 2004;6:503–9.
Wiseman M, Dancyger C, Michie S. Communicating genetic risk information within families: a review. Fam Cancer. 2010;9:691–703. doi:10.1007/s10689-010-9380-3.
Falk MJ, Dugan RB, O’Riordan MA, Matthews AL, Robin NH. Medical geneticist’ duty to warn at-risk relatives for genetic disease. Am J Med Genet. 2003;120A:374–80.
Dugan RB, Wiesner GL, Juengst ET, O’Riordan MA, Matthews AL, Robin NH. Duty to warn at-risk relatives for genetic disease. Am J Med Genet. 2003;119C:27–34.
Peterson SK, Watts BG, Koehly LM, et al. How families communicate about HNPCC genetic testing: findings from a qualitative study. Am J Med Genet. 2003;119C:78–86.
Claes E, Evers-Kiebooms G, Boogaerts A, Decruyenaere M, Denayer L, Legius E. Communication with close and distant relatives in the context of genetic testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer in cancer patients. Am J Med Genet A. 2003;116:11–9.
MacDonald DJ, Sarna L, van Servellen G, Bastani R, Giger JN, Weitzel JN. Selection of family members for communication of cancer risk and barriers to this communication before and after genetic cancer risk assessment. Genet Med. 2007;9:275–82.
Wilson BJ, Forrest K, van Teijlingen ER, McKee L, Haites N, Matthews E. Family communication about genetic risk: the little that is known. Community Genet. 2004;7:24.
Suthers GK, Armstrong J, McCormack J, Trott D. Letting the family know: balancing ethics and effectiveness when notifying relatives about genetic testing for a familial disorder. J Med Genet. 2006;43:665–70.
Chivers SK, Addington-Hall J, Lucassen AM, Foster CL. What facilitates or impedes family communication following genetic testing for cancer risk? A systematic review and meta-synthesis of primary qualitative research. J Genet Couns. 2010;19:330–42.
Dancyger C, Smith JA, Jacobs C, Wallace M, Michie S. Comparing family members’ motivations and attitudes towards genetic testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer: a qualitative analysis. Eur J Hum Genet. 2010;18:1289–95. doi:10.1038/ejhg.2010.114.
McCann S, MacAuley D, Barnett Y, et al. Family communication, genetic predisposition, genetic testing and colonoscopy screening in hereditary non-polyposis colon cancer: a qualitative study. Psycho-Oncology. 2009;18:1208–15.
van den Nieuwenhoff HWP, Mesters I, Gielen C, de Vries NK. Family communication regarding inherited high cholesterol: why and how do patients disclose genetic risk? Soc Sci Med. 2007;65:1025–37.
Mesters I, Ausems M, Eichhorn S, Vasen H. Informing one’s family about genetic testing for hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC): a retrospective exploratory study. Fam Cancer. 2005;4:163–7.
van Dussen L. Colon cancer screening in HNPCC families; evaluation of the uptake of DNA-testing and genetic counseling within HNPCC families, problems relating to disclosure and views on alternative ways of disclosing information. Werkstuk Geneeskunde. 2006.
Croyle RT, Lerman C. Risk communication in genetic testing for cancer susceptibility. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 1999;59–66.
McAllister M. Personal theories of inheritance, coping strategies, risk perception and engagement in hereditary non-polyposis colon cancer families offered genetic testing. Clin Genet. 2003;64:179–89.
Vos J, Menko F, Jansen AM, van Asperen CJ, Stiggelbout AM, Tibben A. A whisper-game perspective on the family communication of DNA-test results: a retrospective study on the communication process of BRCA1/2-test results between proband and relatives. Fam Cancer. 2011;10:87–96.
Ponz de Leon M, Benatti P, DiGeorgio C, Losi L, Genuardi M. Genetic testing among high-risk individuals in families with hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer. Br J Cancer. 2004;90:882–7.
Pieterse AH, Ausems MG, van Dulmen AM, Beemer FA, Bensing JM. Initial cancer genetic counseling consultation: change in counselees’ cognitions and anxiety, and association with addressing their needs and preferences. Am J Med Genet A. 2005;137:27–35.
Erblich J, Brown K, Kim Y, Valdimarsdottir HB, Livingston BE, Bovbjerg DH. Development and validation of a Breast Cancer Genetic Counseling Knowledge Questionnaire. Patient Educ Couns. 2005;56:182–91. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2004.02.007.
Mellon S, Janisse J, Gold R, et al. Predictors of decision making in families at risk for inherited breast/ovarian cancer. Health Psychol. 2009;28:38–47. doi:10.1037/a0012714.
Finlay E, Stopfer JE, Burlingame E, et al. Factors determining dissemination of results and uptake of genetic testing in families with known BRCA1/2 mutations. Genet Test. 2008;12:81–91.
Bjorvatn C, Eide GE, Hanestad BR, Hamang A, Havik OE. Intrusion and avoidance in subjects undergoing genetic investigation and counseling for hereditary cancer. Support Care Cancer. 2009;17:1371–81. doi:10.1007/s00520-009-0594-6.
Scholz U, Dona BG, Sud S, Schwarzer R. Is general self-efficacy a universal construct? Psychometric findings from 25 countries. Eur J Psychol Assess. 2002;18:242–51.
Richtlijn VKGN. Het informeren van familieleden bij erfelijke aanleg voor familieleden. 2012.
Bandura A. Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychol Rev. 1977;84:191–215.
Wolf MS, Chang CH, Davis T, Makoul G. Development and validation of the Communication and Attitudinal Self-Efficacy scale for cancer (CASE-cancer). Patient Educ Couns. 2005;57:333–41.
Bjorvatn C, Eide GE, Hanestad BR, Havik OE. Anxiety and depression among subjects attending genetic counseling for hereditary cancer. Patient Educ Couns. 2008;71:234–43. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2008.01.008.
Teeuw B, Schwarzer R, Jerusalem M. Dutch adaptation of the general self-efficacy scale. 1994.
Smith-McLallen A, Fishbein M. Predictors of intentions to perform six cancer-related behaviours: roles for injunctive and descriptive norms. Psychol Health Med. 2008;13:389–401.
Squires JE, Hayduk L, Hutchinson AM, et al. A protocol for advanced psychometric assessment of surveys. Nurs Res Pract. 2012;2013:156782.
Browne MW. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In: Bollen KA, Long JS, editors. Testing structural equation models. Beverly Hills: Sage; 1993. p. 136–62.
Clark LA, Watson D. Constructing validity: basic issues in objective scale development. Psychol Assess. 1995;7:309–19.
Field AP. Discovering statistics using SPSS. SAGE, 2009.
Gaff CL, Clarke AJ, Atkinson P, et al. Process and outcome in communication of genetic information within families: a systematic review. Eur J Hum Genet. 2007;15:999–1011.
Cheung EL, Olson AD, Yu TM, Han PZ, Beattie MS. Communication of BRCA results and family testing in 1,103 high-risk women. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2010;19:2211–9. doi:10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-10-0325.
Albada A, van Dulmen S, Bensing JM, Ausems MG. Effects of a pre-visit educational website on information recall and needs fulfillment in breast cancer genetic counselling, a randomized controlled trial. Breast Cancer Res. 2012;14:R37.
Acknowledgments
This study was funded by the Dutch Cancer Society; Grant number: UVA 2010-4658. Eveline de Geus, Cora M. Aalfs, Fred H. Menko, Rolf H. Sijmons, Mathilde G.E. Verdam, Hanneke C.J.M. de Haes, and Ellen M.A. Smets declare no conflicts of interest. This study was formally exempted from formal approval by the Medical Ethics committee of the Academic Medical Center in Amsterdam, since the Medical Research Involving Human Subjects Act (WMO) does not apply. All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000. Informed consent was obtained from all patients for being included in the study.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
de Geus, E., Aalfs, C.M., Menko, F.H. et al. Development of the Informing Relatives Inventory (IRI): Assessing Index Patients’ Knowledge, Motivation and Self-Efficacy Regarding the Disclosure of Hereditary Cancer Risk Information to Relatives. Int.J. Behav. Med. 22, 551–560 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12529-014-9455-x
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12529-014-9455-x