Testing a Population-Based Outreach Intervention for Ovarian Cancer Survivors to Encourage their Close Relatives to Consider Genetic Counseling.

IF 3.7 3区 医学 Q2 ONCOLOGY
Yue Guan, Colleen M McBride, Jingsong Zhao, Rebecca D Pentz, Cam Escoffery, Yuan Liu, Yichun Cao, Weihua An, James A Shepperd, Kevin C Ward
{"title":"Testing a Population-Based Outreach Intervention for Ovarian Cancer Survivors to Encourage their Close Relatives to Consider Genetic Counseling.","authors":"Yue Guan, Colleen M McBride, Jingsong Zhao, Rebecca D Pentz, Cam Escoffery, Yuan Liu, Yichun Cao, Weihua An, James A Shepperd, Kevin C Ward","doi":"10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-24-0147","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Most relatives of women with ovarian cancer are unaware of their increased risk for cancer and their eligibility for genetic counseling. State cancer registries offer a platform to communicate about inherited risk to this population.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a two-arm randomized trial to test a theory-based communication intervention-Your Family Connects (YFC)-compared to the standard Georgia Cancer Registry (GCR) contact. A total of 1,938 eligible ovarian cancer survivors were randomly assigned to either the YFC arm (n = 969) or the Standard Care arm (n = 969). We assessed the number of ovarian cancer survivors and their close relatives who logged on to the study website by arm.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Survivor reach was significantly higher in the Standard Care arm than YFC (20.8% vs. 15.2%, respectively; P < 0.001). However, reach to relatives was limited to listed relatives in the YFC arm (n = 20, 13.2%), with little participation from those in the Standard Care arm (n = 1, 0.4%). Pooling across arms, minority race, longer time since diagnosis, and older age were all significantly associated with a decreased likelihood that the survivor accessed the website.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The YFC intervention showed lower effectiveness for engaging survivors but was more effective than Standard Care in engaging at-risk relatives. Other factors (e.g., time since diagnosis) associated with lower reach must be considered in refining future outreach approaches.</p><p><strong>Impact: </strong>Partnering with a state cancer registry to foster family communication about inherited cancer risk is feasible but the possibility for broad population reach warrants further testing.</p>","PeriodicalId":9458,"journal":{"name":"Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11369613/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-24-0147","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Most relatives of women with ovarian cancer are unaware of their increased risk for cancer and their eligibility for genetic counseling. State cancer registries offer a platform to communicate about inherited risk to this population.

Methods: We conducted a two-arm randomized trial to test a theory-based communication intervention-Your Family Connects (YFC)-compared to the standard Georgia Cancer Registry (GCR) contact. A total of 1,938 eligible ovarian cancer survivors were randomly assigned to either the YFC arm (n = 969) or the Standard Care arm (n = 969). We assessed the number of ovarian cancer survivors and their close relatives who logged on to the study website by arm.

Results: Survivor reach was significantly higher in the Standard Care arm than YFC (20.8% vs. 15.2%, respectively; P < 0.001). However, reach to relatives was limited to listed relatives in the YFC arm (n = 20, 13.2%), with little participation from those in the Standard Care arm (n = 1, 0.4%). Pooling across arms, minority race, longer time since diagnosis, and older age were all significantly associated with a decreased likelihood that the survivor accessed the website.

Conclusions: The YFC intervention showed lower effectiveness for engaging survivors but was more effective than Standard Care in engaging at-risk relatives. Other factors (e.g., time since diagnosis) associated with lower reach must be considered in refining future outreach approaches.

Impact: Partnering with a state cancer registry to foster family communication about inherited cancer risk is feasible but the possibility for broad population reach warrants further testing.

为卵巢癌幸存者测试基于人群的外联干预措施,以鼓励其近亲考虑遗传咨询。
背景:大多数卵巢癌女性患者的亲属不知道自己患癌风险增加,也不知道自己有资格接受遗传咨询。州癌症登记处提供了一个向这部分人群宣传遗传风险的平台:我们进行了一项双臂随机试验,以测试基于理论的沟通干预--"您的家庭联系"(YFC)--与佐治亚州癌症登记处(GCR)标准联系方式的比较。共有 1,938 名符合条件的卵巢癌幸存者被随机分配到 YFC 组(969 人)或标准护理组(969 人)。我们评估了各组登录研究网站的卵巢癌幸存者及其近亲的人数:结果:标准护理组的幸存者覆盖率明显高于 YFC 组(分别为 20.8% vs 15.2%;p 结论:YFC 干预对卵巢癌幸存者的有效性较低:YFC干预对幸存者的参与效果较低,但对高危亲属的参与效果优于标准护理。在改进未来的外展方法时,必须考虑到与较低接触率相关的其他因素(如确诊后的时间):影响:与州癌症登记处合作,促进家庭就遗传性癌症风险进行沟通是可行的。是否有可能广泛覆盖人群值得进一步测试。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention
Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
2.60%
发文量
538
审稿时长
1.6 months
期刊介绍: Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention publishes original peer-reviewed, population-based research on cancer etiology, prevention, surveillance, and survivorship. The following topics are of special interest: descriptive, analytical, and molecular epidemiology; biomarkers including assay development, validation, and application; chemoprevention and other types of prevention research in the context of descriptive and observational studies; the role of behavioral factors in cancer etiology and prevention; survivorship studies; risk factors; implementation science and cancer care delivery; and the science of cancer health disparities. Besides welcoming manuscripts that address individual subjects in any of the relevant disciplines, CEBP editors encourage the submission of manuscripts with a transdisciplinary approach.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信