以色列BRCA1/2筛查的经验教训:一项比较经验和交流的横断面调查

IF 1.9 4区 医学 Q3 GENETICS & HEREDITY
Rotem Greenberg, Moran Echar, Amihood Singer, Lena Sagi-Dain
{"title":"以色列BRCA1/2筛查的经验教训:一项比较经验和交流的横断面调查","authors":"Rotem Greenberg,&nbsp;Moran Echar,&nbsp;Amihood Singer,&nbsp;Lena Sagi-Dain","doi":"10.1002/jgc4.2014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>This study aimed to evaluate the perceived quality of pre- and post-test explanations given to women carrying BRCA1/2 variants, and to compare these outcomes between two cohorts: female BRCA1/2 carriers identified through self-reported population-based screening (the screening group), in comparison to self-reported formal pre-test genetic counseling due to personal or familial cancer history (genetic counseling group). This cross-sectional survey of female BRCA1/2 carriers employed an anonymous questionnaire distributed through the “Good Genes – a support and information group for BRCA carriers” association from January to March 2023. Main evaluated outcomes included the perceived quality of pre- and post-test explanations, first analyzed in the overall cohort, and then compared between the 110 respondents in the screening group, to 444 women in the counseling group. In the screening group, 45.5% rated the perceived quality of pre-test explanations as unsatisfactory, compared to 27.4% in the genetic counseling group (<i>p</i> = 0.0005). In terms of result delivery, the screening group reported higher instances of inappropriate timing (61.8% vs. 40.3%, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.0001), suboptimal mode of delivery (55.5% vs. 37.5%, <i>p</i> = 0.0008) and suboptimal perceived quality in post-test explanations (51.4% vs. 33.9%, <i>p</i> = 0.0006), as well as elevated stress levels (74.3% vs. 64.3%, <i>p</i> = 0.043). In the screening group, 21.5% of the women reported that the results were communicated by phone, letter, or online notice, compared to 17.2% in the counseling group, a non-statistically significant difference. A logistic regression model controlling for timing and mode of delivery showed that both timing (<i>β</i> = 0.46, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001) and mode of delivery (<i>β</i> = 0.39, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001) remained significant predictors of dissatisfaction of post-test counseling. The findings of this survey underscore the pressing need for enhancements in pre-test explanation, as well as the post-test counseling for positive results, especially within the realm of BRCA screening.</p>","PeriodicalId":54829,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Genetic Counseling","volume":"34 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jgc4.2014","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Lessons learned from BRCA1/2 screening in Israel: A cross-sectional survey comparing experiences and communication\",\"authors\":\"Rotem Greenberg,&nbsp;Moran Echar,&nbsp;Amihood Singer,&nbsp;Lena Sagi-Dain\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/jgc4.2014\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>This study aimed to evaluate the perceived quality of pre- and post-test explanations given to women carrying BRCA1/2 variants, and to compare these outcomes between two cohorts: female BRCA1/2 carriers identified through self-reported population-based screening (the screening group), in comparison to self-reported formal pre-test genetic counseling due to personal or familial cancer history (genetic counseling group). This cross-sectional survey of female BRCA1/2 carriers employed an anonymous questionnaire distributed through the “Good Genes – a support and information group for BRCA carriers” association from January to March 2023. Main evaluated outcomes included the perceived quality of pre- and post-test explanations, first analyzed in the overall cohort, and then compared between the 110 respondents in the screening group, to 444 women in the counseling group. In the screening group, 45.5% rated the perceived quality of pre-test explanations as unsatisfactory, compared to 27.4% in the genetic counseling group (<i>p</i> = 0.0005). In terms of result delivery, the screening group reported higher instances of inappropriate timing (61.8% vs. 40.3%, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.0001), suboptimal mode of delivery (55.5% vs. 37.5%, <i>p</i> = 0.0008) and suboptimal perceived quality in post-test explanations (51.4% vs. 33.9%, <i>p</i> = 0.0006), as well as elevated stress levels (74.3% vs. 64.3%, <i>p</i> = 0.043). In the screening group, 21.5% of the women reported that the results were communicated by phone, letter, or online notice, compared to 17.2% in the counseling group, a non-statistically significant difference. A logistic regression model controlling for timing and mode of delivery showed that both timing (<i>β</i> = 0.46, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001) and mode of delivery (<i>β</i> = 0.39, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001) remained significant predictors of dissatisfaction of post-test counseling. The findings of this survey underscore the pressing need for enhancements in pre-test explanation, as well as the post-test counseling for positive results, especially within the realm of BRCA screening.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54829,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Genetic Counseling\",\"volume\":\"34 2\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jgc4.2014\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Genetic Counseling\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jgc4.2014\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"GENETICS & HEREDITY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Genetic Counseling","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jgc4.2014","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"GENETICS & HEREDITY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究旨在评估对携带BRCA1/2变异的女性进行检测前和检测后解释的感知质量,并比较两个队列之间的结果:通过自我报告的基于人群的筛查确定的女性BRCA1/2携带者(筛查组),与因个人或家族癌症史而自我报告的正式检测前遗传咨询(遗传咨询组)相比。这项针对女性BRCA1/2携带者的横断面调查采用了一份匿名问卷,于2023年1月至3月通过“好基因- BRCA携带者支持和信息小组”协会分发。主要评估结果包括测试前和测试后解释的感知质量,首先在整个队列中进行分析,然后在筛查组的110名受访者与咨询组的444名女性之间进行比较。在筛查组中,45.5%的人认为测试前解释的感知质量不满意,而遗传咨询组为27.4% (p = 0.0005)。在结果交付方面,筛查组报告了更高的时间不适当的情况(61.8% vs. 40.3%, p
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Lessons learned from BRCA1/2 screening in Israel: A cross-sectional survey comparing experiences and communication

This study aimed to evaluate the perceived quality of pre- and post-test explanations given to women carrying BRCA1/2 variants, and to compare these outcomes between two cohorts: female BRCA1/2 carriers identified through self-reported population-based screening (the screening group), in comparison to self-reported formal pre-test genetic counseling due to personal or familial cancer history (genetic counseling group). This cross-sectional survey of female BRCA1/2 carriers employed an anonymous questionnaire distributed through the “Good Genes – a support and information group for BRCA carriers” association from January to March 2023. Main evaluated outcomes included the perceived quality of pre- and post-test explanations, first analyzed in the overall cohort, and then compared between the 110 respondents in the screening group, to 444 women in the counseling group. In the screening group, 45.5% rated the perceived quality of pre-test explanations as unsatisfactory, compared to 27.4% in the genetic counseling group (p = 0.0005). In terms of result delivery, the screening group reported higher instances of inappropriate timing (61.8% vs. 40.3%, p < 0.0001), suboptimal mode of delivery (55.5% vs. 37.5%, p = 0.0008) and suboptimal perceived quality in post-test explanations (51.4% vs. 33.9%, p = 0.0006), as well as elevated stress levels (74.3% vs. 64.3%, p = 0.043). In the screening group, 21.5% of the women reported that the results were communicated by phone, letter, or online notice, compared to 17.2% in the counseling group, a non-statistically significant difference. A logistic regression model controlling for timing and mode of delivery showed that both timing (β = 0.46, p < 0.001) and mode of delivery (β = 0.39, p < 0.001) remained significant predictors of dissatisfaction of post-test counseling. The findings of this survey underscore the pressing need for enhancements in pre-test explanation, as well as the post-test counseling for positive results, especially within the realm of BRCA screening.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Genetic Counseling
Journal of Genetic Counseling GENETICS & HEREDITY-
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
26.30%
发文量
113
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Genetic Counseling (JOGC), published for the National Society of Genetic Counselors, is a timely, international forum addressing all aspects of the discipline and practice of genetic counseling. The journal focuses on the critical questions and problems that arise at the interface between rapidly advancing technological developments and the concerns of individuals and communities at genetic risk. The publication provides genetic counselors, other clinicians and health educators, laboratory geneticists, bioethicists, legal scholars, social scientists, and other researchers with a premier resource on genetic counseling topics in national, international, and cross-national contexts.
×
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