Effect of a computer-based decision aid on knowledge, perceptions, and intentions about genetic testing for breast cancer susceptibility - A randomized controlled trial

被引:217
作者
Green, MJ
Peterson, SK
Baker, MW
Harper, GR
Friedman, LC
Rubinstein, WS
Manger, DT
机构
[1] Penn State Coll Med, Dept Humanities, Hershey, PA 17033 USA
[2] Penn State Coll Med, Dept Med, Hershey, PA 17033 USA
[3] Milton S Hershey Med Ctr, Penn State Canc Inst, Hershey, PA USA
[4] Univ Texas, MD Anderson Canc Ctr, Houston, TX 77030 USA
[5] Lehigh Valley Hosp, Penn State Canc Inst, Allentown, PA USA
[6] Baylor Coll Med, Houston, TX 77030 USA
[7] Evanston NW Healthcare, Evanston, IL USA
来源
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION | 2004年 / 292卷 / 04期
关键词
D O I
10.1001/jama.292.4.442
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Context As the availability of and demand for genetic testing for hereditary cancers increases in primary care and other clinical settings, alternative or adjunct educational methods to traditional genetic counseling will be needed. Objective To compare the effectiveness of a computer-based decision aid with standard genetic counseling for educating women about BRCA1 and BRCA2 genetic testing. Design Randomized controlled trial conducted from May 2000 to September 2002. Setting and Participants Outpatient clinics offering cancer genetic counseling at 6 US medical centers enrolled 211 women with personal or family histories of breast cancer. Interventions Standard one-on-one genetic counseling (n = 105) or education by a computer program followed by genetic counseling (n = 106). Main Outcome Measures Participants' knowledge, risk perception, intention to undergo genetic testing, decisional conflict, satisfaction with decision, anxiety, and satisfaction with the intervention. Counselor group measures were administered at baseline and after counseling. Computer group measures were administered at baseline, after computer use, and after counseling. Testing decisions were assessed at 1 and 6 months. Outcomes were analyzed by high vs low risk of carrying a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. Results Both groups had comparable demographics, prior computer experience, medical literacy, and baseline knowledge of breast cancer and genetic testing, and both counseling and computer use were rated highly. Knowledge scores increased in both groups (P<.001) regardless of risk status, and change in knowledge was greater in the computer group compared with the counselor group (P=.03) among women at low risk of carrying a mutation. Perception of absolute risk of breast cancer decreased significantly after either intervention among all participants. Intention to undergo testing decreased significantly after either intervention among low-risk but not high-risk women. The counselor group had lower mean scores on a decisional conflict scale (P=.04) and, in low-risk women, higher mean scores on a satisfaction-with-decision scale (P=.001). Mean state anxiety scores were reduced by counseling but were within normal ranges for both groups at baseline and after either intervention, regardless of risk status. Conclusions An interactive computer program was more effective than standard genetic counseling for increasing knowledge of breast cancer and genetic testing among women at low risk of carrying a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. However, genetic counseling was more effective than the computer at reducing women's anxiety and facilitating more accurate risk perceptions. These results suggest that this computer program has the potential to stand alone as an educational intervention for low-risk women but should be used as a supplement to genetic counseling for those at high risk.
引用
收藏
页码:442 / 452
页数:11
相关论文
共 65 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 1994, RADON RENTAL HOUSING
[2]  
[Anonymous], 1998, Promoting Safe and Effective Genetic Testing in the United States
[3]   Interest in BRCA1/2 testing in a primary care population [J].
Armstrong, K ;
Weber, B ;
Ubel, PA ;
Guerra, C ;
Schwartz, JS .
PREVENTIVE MEDICINE, 2002, 34 (06) :590-595
[4]   Health decision aids to facilitate shared decision making in office practice [J].
Barry, MJ .
ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2002, 136 (02) :127-135
[5]  
Baty BJ, 1999, AM J MED GENET, V86, P93, DOI 10.1002/(SICI)1096-8628(19990903)86:1<93::AID-AJMG22>3.0.CO
[6]  
2-V
[7]   BRCAPRO validation, sensitivity of genetic testing of BRCA1/BRCA2, and prevalence of other breast cancer susceptibility genes [J].
Berry, DA ;
Iversen, ES ;
Gudbjartsson, DF ;
Hiller, EH ;
Garber, JE ;
Peshkin, BN ;
Lerman, C ;
Watson, P ;
Lynch, HT ;
Hilsenbeck, SG ;
Rubinstein, WS ;
Hughes, KS ;
Parmigiani, G .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2002, 20 (11) :2701-2712
[8]   Probability of carrying a mutation of breast-ovarian cancer gene BRCA1 based on family history [J].
Berry, DA ;
Parmigiani, G ;
Sanchez, J ;
Schildkraut, J ;
Winer, E .
JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE, 1997, 89 (03) :227-238
[9]   Psychosocial issues in cancer genetics - Current status and future directions [J].
Bleiker, EMA ;
Hahn, DEE ;
Aaronson, NK .
ACTA ONCOLOGICA, 2003, 42 (04) :276-286
[10]   American Society of Clinical Oncology policy statement update: Genetic testing for cancer susceptibility [J].
Bruinooge, SS .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2003, 21 (12) :2397-2406