Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Patient outcomes associated with group and individual genetic counseling formats

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Familial Cancer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Identifying new methods to deliver cancer genetic counseling (GC) are needed to meet the growing interest in BRCA1/2 testing. The goal of this pilot feasibility study was designed to test the initial acceptability of group GC on selected patient outcomes (satisfaction, distress, perceived control) in a breast/ovarian cancer genetics clinic setting. Sixty-five participants at increased risk for hereditary breast/ovarian cancer (HBOC) agreed to participate in self-selected individual or group GC appointments. Forty-nine participants completed all study questionnaires and were included in the analyses. There were significant improvements for participants in both the individual and group GC formats with regard to perceived personal control, general psychological distress and cancer-specific psychological distress scores. Participants in both the individual and group formats reported high satisfaction scores on the Genetic Counseling Satisfaction Scale. Study results suggest that group GC may be feasible and acceptable to high-risk women.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

GC:

Genetic counseling

HBOC:

Hereditary breast/ovarian cancer

FCAC:

Family cancer assessment clinic

IES:

Impact of event scale

PPC:

Perceived personal control

HADS:

Hospital anxiety and depression scale

GCSS:

Genetic counseling satisfaction scale

References

  1. ACS (2010) American cancer society: cancer facts and figures 2010. Author, Atlanta

    Google Scholar 

  2. USPSTF (2005) U.S. preventative services task force. Genetic risk assessment and BRCA mutation testing for breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility: recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 143:355–361

    Google Scholar 

  3. Chen S, Parmigiani G (2007) Meta-analysis of BRCA1 and BRCA2 penetrance. J Clin Oncol 25:1329–1333

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. DeMarco TA et al (2004) Patient satisfaction with genetic counseling: a psychometric analysis of the genetic counseling satisfaction scale. J Genet Couns 13(4):292–304

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bennet RL et al (2003) Genetic counselors: translating genomic science into practice. J Clin Invest 112:1274–1279

    Google Scholar 

  6. Calzone KA et al (2005) Randomized comparison of group versus individual genetic education and counseling for familial breast and/or ovarian cancer. J Clin Oncol 23(15):3455–3464

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Freedman AN et al (2003) US physicians’ attitudes toward genetic testing for cancer susceptability. Am J Med Genet A 120:63–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Lea DH (2006) Expanding nurses’ roles in telemedicine and genetic services. Am J Matern Child Nurs 31(3):185–189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Braithwaite D et al (2006) Psychological impact of genetic counseling for familial cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fam Cancer 5(1):61–75

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Miller S et al (2005) Enhanced counseling for women undergoing BRCA1/2 testing: impact on subsequent decision making about risk reduction behaviors. Health Educ Behav 32(5):654–667

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Pieterse A et al (2005) Initial cancer genetic counseling consultation: change in counselees’ cognitions and anxiety, and association with addressing their needs and preferences. Am J Med Genet 137(1):27–35

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Matloff ET et al (2006) Healthy women with a family history of breast cancer: impact of tailored genetic counseling intervention on risk perception, knowledge, and menopausal therapy decision making. J Women’s Health 15(7):843–856

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Nordin K et al (2002) Coping style, psychological distress, risk perception, and satisfaction in subjects attending genetic counseling for hereditary cancer. J Med Gen 39:689–694

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. den Heijer M et al. (2010) The contribution of self-esteem and self-concept in psychological distress in women at risk of hereditary breast cancer. Psycho-oncology. doi:10.1002/pon.1824

  15. Lerman C et al (1997) Controlled trial of pretest education approaches to enhance informed decision-making for BRCa1 genet testing. J Natl Cancer Inst 89:148–157

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Ridge Y et al (2009) Evaluation of group genetic counseling for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. J Genet Couns 18:87–100

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Helmes AW, Culver JO, Bowen DJ (2006) Results of a randomized study of telephone versus in-person breast cancer risk counseling. Patient Educ Couns 64:96–103

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Skinner CS et al (2002) Pre-counseling education materials for BRCA testing: does tailoring make a difference? Genet Test 6:93–105

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Cull A et al (1998) The use of videotaped information in cancer genetic counseling: a randomized evaluation study. Br J Cancer 77:830–837

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Green MJ et al (2001) Education about genetic testing for breast cancer susceptibility: patient preferences for a computer program or genetic counselor. Am J Med Genet 103:24–31

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Burlingame GM, Fuhriman AJ, Johnson J (2004) Process and outcome in group counseling and psychotherapy: a perspective. In: DeLucia-Waack J et al (eds) Handbook of group counseling and psychotherapy. Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp 49–61

    Google Scholar 

  22. Lieberman MA, Golant M, Altman T (2004) Therapeutic norms and patient benefit: cancer patients in professionally directed support groups. Group Dyn 8(4):265–276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Beck AP, Lewis CM (eds) (2000) The process of group psychotherapy. American Psychologcial Association, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  24. Spiegel D, Classen C (2000) Group therapy for cancer patients: a research-based handbook of psychosocial care. Basic Books Inc Publishers, New York

    Google Scholar 

  25. Shaw ME (1981) Group dynamics: the psychology of small group behavior. McGraw-Hill College, New York

    Google Scholar 

  26. Wilson SR (1997) Individual versus group education: is one better? Patient Educ Couns 21(1):67–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Shechtman Z, Toren Z (2010) The association of personal, process, and outcome variables in group counseling: testing an exploratory model. Group Dyn Theory Res Pract 14:292–303

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Lerman C et al (1996) BRCA1 testing in families with hereditary breast-ovarian cancer. JAMA 275:1885–1892

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Meiser B et al (2001) Long term outcomes of genetic counseling in women at increased risk of developing hereditary breast cancer. Patient Educ Couns 44:215–225

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Horowitz M, Wilner N, Alvarez W (1979) Impact of event scale: a measure of subjective stress. J Psychosom Med 41:209–218

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Zilberg N, Weiss D, Horowitz M (1982) Impact of event scale: a cross validation study and some empirical evidence supporting a conceptual model of stress response syndromes. J Consult Clin Psychol 50(3):409–414

    Google Scholar 

  32. Spiegel D et al (1999) Group psychotherapy for recently diagnosed breast cancer patients: a multicenter feasibility study. Psycho-Oncology 8:482–493

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Smets EMA et al (2006) The perceived personal control questionnaire as an outcome of genetic counseling: reliability and validity of the instrument. Am J Med Genet 140A:843–850

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Berkenstadt M et al (1999) Perceived personal control (PPC): a new concept for measuring outcome of genetic counseling. Am J Med Genet 94:189–197

    Google Scholar 

  35. Johnston M, Pollard B, Hennessey P (2000) Construct validation of the hospital anxiety and depression scale with clinical populations. J Psychosom Res 48:579–584

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Bjorvatn C et al (2008) Anxiety and depression among subjects attending genetic counseling for hereditary cancer. Patient Educ Couns 71:234–243

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Mikkelsen J et al (2008) Psychosocial conditions of women awaiting genetic counseling: a population based study. J Genet Couns 17(3):242–251

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Wakefield CE et al (2008) A randomized trial of a breast/ovarian cancer genetic testing decision aid used as a communication aid during genetic counseling. Psycho-Oncology 17:844–854

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Tercyak KP et al (2001) Psychological response to prenatal genetic counseling and amniocentesis. Patient Educ Couns 43:73–84

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Haas M (1999) A critique of patient satisfaction. Health Inf Manag 29:9–13

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Shiloh S et al (1997) Mediating effects of perceived personal control: the case of genetic counseling. J Appl Soc Psychol 27:1146–1174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Tercyak KP et al (2004) Women’s satisfaction with genetic counseling for hereditary breast-ovarian cancer: psychological aspects. Am J Med Genet 131:36–41

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Schwartz MD et al (2002) Impact of BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation testing on psychologic distress in a clinic-based sample. J Clin Oncol 20:514–520

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Bjelland I et al (2002) The validity of the hospital anxiety and depression scale; an updated literature. J Psychosom Med 52:69–77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Reichelt JG et al (2004) BRCA1 testing with definitive results: a prospective study of psychological distress in a large clinic-based sample. Familial Cancer 3:21–28

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Lerman C et al (2002) Genetic testing: psychological aspects and implications. J Consult Clin Psychol 70:784–797

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Berger CR (1979) Beyond initial interaction: uncertainty, understanding, and the development of interpersonal relationships. In: Giles H, St.Clair RN (eds) Language and social psychology. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp 41–67

    Google Scholar 

  48. Arrington MI (2010) Theorizing about social support and health communication in a prostate cancer support group. J Psychosoc Oncol 28:260–268

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Biesecker BB, Peters KF (2001) Process studies in genetic counseling: peering into the black box. Am J Med Genet 106:191–198

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Wang C, Gonzales R, Merajver DS (2004) Assessment of genetic testing and related counseling services: current research and future directions. Soc Sci Med 58:1427–1442

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Lepore SJ et al (2003) Improving quality of life in men with prostate cancer: a randomized controlled trial of group education interventions. Health Psychol 22:443–452

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Derkx HP et al (2009) Quality of communication during telephone triage at Dutch out of hours centres. Patient Educ Couns 74:174–178

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. DiMatteo MR (2003) Future directions in research on consumer-provider communication and adherence to cancer prevention and treatment. Patient Educ Couns 50(1):23–26

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Stewert M et al (2000) The impact of patient-centered care on outcomes. J Fam Pract 49(9):796–804

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge the support from the Huntsman Cancer Foundation and the use of core facilities supported by the P30 CA0421014 awarded to the Huntsman Cancer Institute.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Nursing, University of Utah, 10 South 2000 East, Salt Lake City, UT, 84112, USA

    Erin Rothwell & Bob Wong

  2. Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA

    Wendy Kohlmann, Kory Jasperson & Amanda Gammon

  3. Department of Internal Medicine and Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA

    Anita Kinney

Authors
  1. Erin Rothwell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Wendy Kohlmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kory Jasperson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Amanda Gammon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Bob Wong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Anita Kinney
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Erin Rothwell.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rothwell, E., Kohlmann, W., Jasperson, K. et al. Patient outcomes associated with group and individual genetic counseling formats. Familial Cancer 11, 97–106 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10689-011-9486-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10689-011-9486-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation