4.2 Article

Health professionals' evaluation of delivering treatment-focused genetic testing to women newly diagnosed with breast cancer

期刊

FAMILIAL CANCER
卷 14, 期 2, 页码 265-272

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10689-014-9770-z

关键词

Oncology professionals; Attitudes; Genetic testing; Breast cancer; Diagnosis; Treatment-focused genetic testing; Rapid genetic counseling

资金

  1. Priority-Driven Collaborative Research Scheme
  2. Cancer Australia [630405]
  3. Cancer Council [630405]
  4. National Breast Cancer Foundation [630405]
  5. Career Development Fellowship Award from the National Health and Medical Research Council Australia
  6. Cancer Institute New South Wales Career Development Fellowship
  7. Dutch Cancer Society [UVA 2011-4918]
  8. Psycho-oncology Cooperative Research Group (PoCoG)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Increasingly, women are offered genetic testing shortly after diagnosis of breast cancer to facilitate decision-making about treatment, often referred to as 'treatment-focused genetic testing' (TFGT). As understanding the attitudes of health professionals is likely to inform its integration into clinical care we surveyed professionals who participated in our TFGT randomized control study. Thirty-six completed surveys were received (response rate 59 %), 15 (42 %) health professionals classified as genetic and 21 (58 %) as non-genetic. Mainly positive experiences with participating in the TFGT trial were reported. The high cost of testing and who could best deliver information about TGFT to the patient were raised as key constraints to implementation of TFGT in usual care. More non-genetic than genetic health professionals (44 vs 8 %) preferred that the surgeon provide the information for decision-making about TFGT. While costs of TFGT itself and the time and effort of staff involved were perceived barriers, as testing costs become lower, it is expected that TFGT will become a routine part of standard clinical care for patients at high genetic risk in the near future.

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

4.2
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