3.8 Article

Genetic Counselling and Narrative Practices: A Model of Support following a Negative Predictive Test for Huntington's Disease

期刊

JOURNAL OF HUNTINGTONS DISEASE
卷 7, 期 2, 页码 175-183

出版社

IOS PRESS
DOI: 10.3233/JHD-170276

关键词

Huntington's disease; narrative; predictive testing; service evaluation

资金

  1. EHDN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Predictive testing for Huntington's disease (HD) has been available for individuals at risk of HD by direct mutation analysis since 1993. International Predictive test guidelines recommend that support is offered following the result regardless of test outcome. However, there is lack of an evidence base regarding what this support should look like and how it might work in practice. Objective: A service improvement initiative looked at the feasibility of offering a narrative group session co-facilitated by a genetic counsellor and clinical psychologist, to individuals who had tested mutation negative for HD. The narrative session was evaluated from the perspective of group participants. Methods: Individuals who tested mutation negative at a genetic centre in the North of England over a 5-year period were invited to attend a narrative group session. 52 people were contacted and 9 people agreed to participate. Participants completed standardised questionnaires (PHQ-9 and GAD-7) before and after the session and a detailed written evaluation. Participants' comments were analysed thematically. Results: Participants were overwhelmingly positive about the narrative session finding it a safe and enjoyable way to explore difficult life experiences. Reported benefits included feeling less isolated, being inspired by other people's stories and connecting as a group. All 9 participants said they would recommend the narrative session to anyone impacted by HD. Conclusions: The narrative group session was considered an interesting and useful approach to facilitating adaptation following a negative predictive test result for HD.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据