RSS bericht

Abstract

Purpose

To develop a decision support tool for young women with breast cancer considering genetic testing for BRCA1/2 mutations soon after cancer diagnosis.

Methods

A four-stage iterative development process was employed; stage 1, literature review exploring the availability and efficacy of empirically tested decision support tools; stage 2, in-depth interviews with 29 young women (< 50 years) recently diagnosed with breast cancer, exploring information requirements and experiences of genetic testing decision making; stage 3, three focus groups (N = 21) exploring preferences for information presentation and prioritisation of content; stage 4, think-aloud interviews to refine the prototype (N = 16).

Results

Participants wanted information regarding the pros and cons of testing, the testing process and implications for their family, presented in a way that allowed them to choose the level of detail they required. They preferred the term ‘altered gene’, valued a medical word definition function and warnings before accessing sensitive information.

Conclusion

Participants valued the decision support tool, the accessibility of the information and its clinical endorsement. The decision support tool has considerable clinical utility as an adjunct to genetic counselling or for use in busy oncology clinics where formal genetic counselling may be unavailable.

Abstract

Purpose

To develop a decision support tool for young women with breast cancer considering genetic testing for BRCA1/2 mutations soon after cancer diagnosis.

Methods

A four-stage iterative development process was employed; stage 1, literature review exploring the availability and efficacy of empirically tested decision support tools; stage 2, in-depth interviews with 29 young women (< 50 years) recently diagnosed with breast cancer, exploring information requirements and experiences of genetic testing decision making; stage 3, three focus groups (N = 21) exploring preferences for information presentation and prioritisation of content; stage 4, think-aloud interviews to refine the prototype (N = 16).

Results

Participants wanted information regarding the pros and cons of testing, the testing process and implications for their family, presented in a way that allowed them to choose the level of detail they required. They preferred the term ‘altered gene’, valued a medical word definition function and warnings before accessing sensitive information.

Conclusion

Participants valued the decision support tool, the accessibility of the information and its clinical endorsement. The decision support tool has considerable clinical utility as an adjunct to genetic counselling or for use in busy oncology clinics where formal genetic counselling may be unavailable.