Recall of and Reactions to a Surgeon Referral Letter for BRCA Genetic Counseling Among High-Risk Breast Cancer Patients

Background The oncology care setting represents an important opportunity to identify and refer women at increased risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. However, little is known about the effectiveness of provider approaches to inform patients of hereditary cancer risk or patient uptake of g...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Annals of surgical oncology 2009-07, Vol.16 (7), p.1973-1981
Hauptverfasser: Vadaparampil, Susan T., Quinn, Gwendolyn P., Miree, Cheryl A., Brzosowicz, Jennifer, Carter, Bradford, Laronga, Christine
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 1981
container_issue 7
container_start_page 1973
container_title Annals of surgical oncology
container_volume 16
creator Vadaparampil, Susan T.
Quinn, Gwendolyn P.
Miree, Cheryl A.
Brzosowicz, Jennifer
Carter, Bradford
Laronga, Christine
description Background The oncology care setting represents an important opportunity to identify and refer women at increased risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. However, little is known about the effectiveness of provider approaches to inform patients of hereditary cancer risk or patient uptake of genetic counseling (GC). This qualitative study examined the impact of a surgeon referral letter on recently diagnosed breast cancer patients’ uptake of BRCA GC. Methods Qualitative open-ended, in-depth interviews were conducted with 26 high-risk breast cancer patients sent a referral letter for BRCA GC by their surgeon. Data were analyzed by a grounded theory approach. Results Most women (~80%) recalled receiving the letter, and 62% of all ( n  = 16) women pursued GC. Recall of the letter did not seem to be associated with uptake of GC ( P  = .49, Fisher’s exact test). The results highlight key areas for improvement that may help increase the impact of the letter. Half of the women in this sample believed that the letter was sent to all breast cancer patients, rather than those with specific risk factors. Few women mentioned any implications for the information obtained during GC or testing regarding their current breast cancer diagnosis or treatment. Of the women who did not attend, many perceived that dealing with the GC and testing process in the midst of a cancer diagnosis and treatment was overwhelming. Among the women who had chosen not to attend GC, most stated they would reconsider after completing their treatment. Conclusions Patient recall of a surgeon referral letter does not seem to increase the number of high-risk women who attend GC after a breast cancer diagnosis. The letter approach in its current format does not seem to be a wholly effective means of communicating with some patients who may be overwhelmed by their cancer diagnosis or unaware that GC and testing may have implications for their current treatment decisions, possibly resulting in a missed opportunity to engage in informed decision making.
doi_str_mv 10.1245/s10434-009-0479-4
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_67370668</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1746295321</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c400t-f3261f76e7502e1a8f7c12762a4b5b2011566f8aeefe4a2274171195b68dcbb3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkV1rFDEUhoMo9ssf4I0EL7wbm5PJx8zldtC2sFDZ9j5ksifr1NmkJhnEf2_KLhQE8SYJJ8_7nnN4CXkP7DNwIS8zMNGKhrG-YUL3jXhFTkHWilAdvK5vprqm50qekLOcHxkD3TL5lpxAL1jHRHdKfm3Q2Xmm0VMbtnSD1pUphkxLpJbeL2mHMdSyx5TsTNdYCibqY6JXm2FFrzFgmRwd4hIyzlPY0dU-1vNm2n1vNlP-Qa8S2lzoYIOrym-2TBhKviBvvJ0zvjve5-Th65eH4aZZ313fDqt14wRjpfEtV-C1Qi0ZR7Cd1w64VtyKUY6cAUilfGexDigs51qABujlqLqtG8f2nHw62D6l-HPBXMx-yg7n2QaMSzZKt5op1f0X5ExL2UpdwY9_gY9xSaHuYGr7tu2FhgrBAXIp5pzQm6c07W36bYCZ5-jMITpTozPP0RlRNR-Oxsu4x-2L4phVBfgByPUr7DC9dP636x_Q-6I2</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>227339471</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Recall of and Reactions to a Surgeon Referral Letter for BRCA Genetic Counseling Among High-Risk Breast Cancer Patients</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings</source><creator>Vadaparampil, Susan T. ; Quinn, Gwendolyn P. ; Miree, Cheryl A. ; Brzosowicz, Jennifer ; Carter, Bradford ; Laronga, Christine</creator><creatorcontrib>Vadaparampil, Susan T. ; Quinn, Gwendolyn P. ; Miree, Cheryl A. ; Brzosowicz, Jennifer ; Carter, Bradford ; Laronga, Christine</creatorcontrib><description>Background The oncology care setting represents an important opportunity to identify and refer women at increased risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. However, little is known about the effectiveness of provider approaches to inform patients of hereditary cancer risk or patient uptake of genetic counseling (GC). This qualitative study examined the impact of a surgeon referral letter on recently diagnosed breast cancer patients’ uptake of BRCA GC. Methods Qualitative open-ended, in-depth interviews were conducted with 26 high-risk breast cancer patients sent a referral letter for BRCA GC by their surgeon. Data were analyzed by a grounded theory approach. Results Most women (~80%) recalled receiving the letter, and 62% of all ( n  = 16) women pursued GC. Recall of the letter did not seem to be associated with uptake of GC ( P  = .49, Fisher’s exact test). The results highlight key areas for improvement that may help increase the impact of the letter. Half of the women in this sample believed that the letter was sent to all breast cancer patients, rather than those with specific risk factors. Few women mentioned any implications for the information obtained during GC or testing regarding their current breast cancer diagnosis or treatment. Of the women who did not attend, many perceived that dealing with the GC and testing process in the midst of a cancer diagnosis and treatment was overwhelming. Among the women who had chosen not to attend GC, most stated they would reconsider after completing their treatment. Conclusions Patient recall of a surgeon referral letter does not seem to increase the number of high-risk women who attend GC after a breast cancer diagnosis. The letter approach in its current format does not seem to be a wholly effective means of communicating with some patients who may be overwhelmed by their cancer diagnosis or unaware that GC and testing may have implications for their current treatment decisions, possibly resulting in a missed opportunity to engage in informed decision making.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1068-9265</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1534-4681</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1245/s10434-009-0479-4</identifier><identifier>PMID: 19408048</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: Springer-Verlag</publisher><subject>Adult ; Attitude to Health ; Breast Neoplasms - genetics ; Breast Neoplasms - psychology ; Breast Neoplasms - surgery ; Breast Neoplasms - therapy ; Breast Oncology ; Communication ; Female ; Genes, BRCA1 ; Genes, BRCA2 ; Genetic Counseling - psychology ; Humans ; Medicine ; Medicine &amp; Public Health ; Middle Aged ; Oncology ; Patient Acceptance of Health Care ; Patient Education as Topic ; Physician-Patient Relations ; Referral and Consultation ; Surgery ; Surgical Oncology</subject><ispartof>Annals of surgical oncology, 2009-07, Vol.16 (7), p.1973-1981</ispartof><rights>Society of Surgical Oncology 2009</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c400t-f3261f76e7502e1a8f7c12762a4b5b2011566f8aeefe4a2274171195b68dcbb3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c400t-f3261f76e7502e1a8f7c12762a4b5b2011566f8aeefe4a2274171195b68dcbb3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1245/s10434-009-0479-4$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1245/s10434-009-0479-4$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,778,782,27907,27908,41471,42540,51302</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19408048$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Vadaparampil, Susan T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Quinn, Gwendolyn P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Miree, Cheryl A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brzosowicz, Jennifer</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Carter, Bradford</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Laronga, Christine</creatorcontrib><title>Recall of and Reactions to a Surgeon Referral Letter for BRCA Genetic Counseling Among High-Risk Breast Cancer Patients</title><title>Annals of surgical oncology</title><addtitle>Ann Surg Oncol</addtitle><addtitle>Ann Surg Oncol</addtitle><description>Background The oncology care setting represents an important opportunity to identify and refer women at increased risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. However, little is known about the effectiveness of provider approaches to inform patients of hereditary cancer risk or patient uptake of genetic counseling (GC). This qualitative study examined the impact of a surgeon referral letter on recently diagnosed breast cancer patients’ uptake of BRCA GC. Methods Qualitative open-ended, in-depth interviews were conducted with 26 high-risk breast cancer patients sent a referral letter for BRCA GC by their surgeon. Data were analyzed by a grounded theory approach. Results Most women (~80%) recalled receiving the letter, and 62% of all ( n  = 16) women pursued GC. Recall of the letter did not seem to be associated with uptake of GC ( P  = .49, Fisher’s exact test). The results highlight key areas for improvement that may help increase the impact of the letter. Half of the women in this sample believed that the letter was sent to all breast cancer patients, rather than those with specific risk factors. Few women mentioned any implications for the information obtained during GC or testing regarding their current breast cancer diagnosis or treatment. Of the women who did not attend, many perceived that dealing with the GC and testing process in the midst of a cancer diagnosis and treatment was overwhelming. Among the women who had chosen not to attend GC, most stated they would reconsider after completing their treatment. Conclusions Patient recall of a surgeon referral letter does not seem to increase the number of high-risk women who attend GC after a breast cancer diagnosis. The letter approach in its current format does not seem to be a wholly effective means of communicating with some patients who may be overwhelmed by their cancer diagnosis or unaware that GC and testing may have implications for their current treatment decisions, possibly resulting in a missed opportunity to engage in informed decision making.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Attitude to Health</subject><subject>Breast Neoplasms - genetics</subject><subject>Breast Neoplasms - psychology</subject><subject>Breast Neoplasms - surgery</subject><subject>Breast Neoplasms - therapy</subject><subject>Breast Oncology</subject><subject>Communication</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Genes, BRCA1</subject><subject>Genes, BRCA2</subject><subject>Genetic Counseling - psychology</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine &amp; Public Health</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Oncology</subject><subject>Patient Acceptance of Health Care</subject><subject>Patient Education as Topic</subject><subject>Physician-Patient Relations</subject><subject>Referral and Consultation</subject><subject>Surgery</subject><subject>Surgical Oncology</subject><issn>1068-9265</issn><issn>1534-4681</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2009</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkV1rFDEUhoMo9ssf4I0EL7wbm5PJx8zldtC2sFDZ9j5ksifr1NmkJhnEf2_KLhQE8SYJJ8_7nnN4CXkP7DNwIS8zMNGKhrG-YUL3jXhFTkHWilAdvK5vprqm50qekLOcHxkD3TL5lpxAL1jHRHdKfm3Q2Xmm0VMbtnSD1pUphkxLpJbeL2mHMdSyx5TsTNdYCibqY6JXm2FFrzFgmRwd4hIyzlPY0dU-1vNm2n1vNlP-Qa8S2lzoYIOrym-2TBhKviBvvJ0zvjve5-Th65eH4aZZ313fDqt14wRjpfEtV-C1Qi0ZR7Cd1w64VtyKUY6cAUilfGexDigs51qABujlqLqtG8f2nHw62D6l-HPBXMx-yg7n2QaMSzZKt5op1f0X5ExL2UpdwY9_gY9xSaHuYGr7tu2FhgrBAXIp5pzQm6c07W36bYCZ5-jMITpTozPP0RlRNR-Oxsu4x-2L4phVBfgByPUr7DC9dP636x_Q-6I2</recordid><startdate>20090701</startdate><enddate>20090701</enddate><creator>Vadaparampil, Susan T.</creator><creator>Quinn, Gwendolyn P.</creator><creator>Miree, Cheryl A.</creator><creator>Brzosowicz, Jennifer</creator><creator>Carter, Bradford</creator><creator>Laronga, Christine</creator><general>Springer-Verlag</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7TO</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20090701</creationdate><title>Recall of and Reactions to a Surgeon Referral Letter for BRCA Genetic Counseling Among High-Risk Breast Cancer Patients</title><author>Vadaparampil, Susan T. ; Quinn, Gwendolyn P. ; Miree, Cheryl A. ; Brzosowicz, Jennifer ; Carter, Bradford ; Laronga, Christine</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c400t-f3261f76e7502e1a8f7c12762a4b5b2011566f8aeefe4a2274171195b68dcbb3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2009</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Attitude to Health</topic><topic>Breast Neoplasms - genetics</topic><topic>Breast Neoplasms - psychology</topic><topic>Breast Neoplasms - surgery</topic><topic>Breast Neoplasms - therapy</topic><topic>Breast Oncology</topic><topic>Communication</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Genes, BRCA1</topic><topic>Genes, BRCA2</topic><topic>Genetic Counseling - psychology</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine &amp; Public Health</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Oncology</topic><topic>Patient Acceptance of Health Care</topic><topic>Patient Education as Topic</topic><topic>Physician-Patient Relations</topic><topic>Referral and Consultation</topic><topic>Surgery</topic><topic>Surgical Oncology</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Vadaparampil, Susan T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Quinn, Gwendolyn P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Miree, Cheryl A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brzosowicz, Jennifer</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Carter, Bradford</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Laronga, Christine</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Oncogenes and Growth Factors Abstracts</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Annals of surgical oncology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Vadaparampil, Susan T.</au><au>Quinn, Gwendolyn P.</au><au>Miree, Cheryl A.</au><au>Brzosowicz, Jennifer</au><au>Carter, Bradford</au><au>Laronga, Christine</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Recall of and Reactions to a Surgeon Referral Letter for BRCA Genetic Counseling Among High-Risk Breast Cancer Patients</atitle><jtitle>Annals of surgical oncology</jtitle><stitle>Ann Surg Oncol</stitle><addtitle>Ann Surg Oncol</addtitle><date>2009-07-01</date><risdate>2009</risdate><volume>16</volume><issue>7</issue><spage>1973</spage><epage>1981</epage><pages>1973-1981</pages><issn>1068-9265</issn><eissn>1534-4681</eissn><abstract>Background The oncology care setting represents an important opportunity to identify and refer women at increased risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. However, little is known about the effectiveness of provider approaches to inform patients of hereditary cancer risk or patient uptake of genetic counseling (GC). This qualitative study examined the impact of a surgeon referral letter on recently diagnosed breast cancer patients’ uptake of BRCA GC. Methods Qualitative open-ended, in-depth interviews were conducted with 26 high-risk breast cancer patients sent a referral letter for BRCA GC by their surgeon. Data were analyzed by a grounded theory approach. Results Most women (~80%) recalled receiving the letter, and 62% of all ( n  = 16) women pursued GC. Recall of the letter did not seem to be associated with uptake of GC ( P  = .49, Fisher’s exact test). The results highlight key areas for improvement that may help increase the impact of the letter. Half of the women in this sample believed that the letter was sent to all breast cancer patients, rather than those with specific risk factors. Few women mentioned any implications for the information obtained during GC or testing regarding their current breast cancer diagnosis or treatment. Of the women who did not attend, many perceived that dealing with the GC and testing process in the midst of a cancer diagnosis and treatment was overwhelming. Among the women who had chosen not to attend GC, most stated they would reconsider after completing their treatment. Conclusions Patient recall of a surgeon referral letter does not seem to increase the number of high-risk women who attend GC after a breast cancer diagnosis. The letter approach in its current format does not seem to be a wholly effective means of communicating with some patients who may be overwhelmed by their cancer diagnosis or unaware that GC and testing may have implications for their current treatment decisions, possibly resulting in a missed opportunity to engage in informed decision making.</abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>Springer-Verlag</pub><pmid>19408048</pmid><doi>10.1245/s10434-009-0479-4</doi><tpages>9</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1068-9265
ispartof Annals of surgical oncology, 2009-07, Vol.16 (7), p.1973-1981
issn 1068-9265
1534-4681
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_67370668
source MEDLINE; SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings
subjects Adult
Attitude to Health
Breast Neoplasms - genetics
Breast Neoplasms - psychology
Breast Neoplasms - surgery
Breast Neoplasms - therapy
Breast Oncology
Communication
Female
Genes, BRCA1
Genes, BRCA2
Genetic Counseling - psychology
Humans
Medicine
Medicine & Public Health
Middle Aged
Oncology
Patient Acceptance of Health Care
Patient Education as Topic
Physician-Patient Relations
Referral and Consultation
Surgery
Surgical Oncology
title Recall of and Reactions to a Surgeon Referral Letter for BRCA Genetic Counseling Among High-Risk Breast Cancer Patients
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-17T01%3A56%3A59IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Recall%20of%20and%20Reactions%20to%20a%20Surgeon%20Referral%20Letter%20for%20BRCA%20Genetic%20Counseling%20Among%20High-Risk%20Breast%20Cancer%20Patients&rft.jtitle=Annals%20of%20surgical%20oncology&rft.au=Vadaparampil,%20Susan%20T.&rft.date=2009-07-01&rft.volume=16&rft.issue=7&rft.spage=1973&rft.epage=1981&rft.pages=1973-1981&rft.issn=1068-9265&rft.eissn=1534-4681&rft_id=info:doi/10.1245/s10434-009-0479-4&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1746295321%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=227339471&rft_id=info:pmid/19408048&rfr_iscdi=true