OBJECTIVE: Previous studies suggest that learning a DNA-test-result has no direct impact on the medical-decisions and psychological well-being of counselees. Their perception, especially their... Show moreOBJECTIVE: Previous studies suggest that learning a DNA-test-result has no direct impact on the medical-decisions and psychological well-being of counselees. Their perception, especially their recollections and interpretations of their cancer-risks and heredity, predict and/or mediate this impact. These studies were criticized for their small range of predictors, mediators, outcomes and contextual factors. We studied the short-term impact of DNA-testing with an extended model. METHODS: Three months after disclosure of BRCA1/2-test-results, we sent counselees a questionnaire about their perception, medical and psychological outcomes, and medical, familial and psychological contexts. 248 affected women participated; 30 had received pathogenic-mutations, 16 unclassified-variants and 202 uninformative-results. RESULTS: The actually communicated genetic-information and the contextual variables predicted the counselees' perception, but did not directly predict any outcomes. The counselees' perception predicted and/or completely mediated the counselees' medical intentions and behavior, physical and psychological life-changes, stigma, mastery, negativity and cancer-worries. Short-term distress was related to the perception not only of their own risks, but also of their relatives' risks and heredity-likelihood. Effect sizes were medium to large. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: The outcomes of DNA-testing were better predicted by the counselees' perception than by the actually given genetic-information. We recommend genetic-counselors to have tailored, interactive dialogues about the counselees' perception. Show less
Background: Unclassified variant and uninformative BRCA1/2 results are not only relevant for probands to whom results are disclosed but also for untested relatives. Previous studies have seldomly... Show moreBackground: Unclassified variant and uninformative BRCA1/2 results are not only relevant for probands to whom results are disclosed but also for untested relatives. Previous studies have seldomly included relatives and have not explained how their lives were influenced by these results. We explored the family communication timeline of genetic counseling: (1) genetic counselors communicate the relatives' cancer risk, (2) probands perceive this risk and (3) communicate this to relatives; (4) relatives perceive this information, and (5) experience an impact on their lives. Methods: We conducted a retrospective descriptive study in 13 probands with an unclassified variant and 5 with an uninformative result, and in, respectively, 27 and 12 of their untested female relatives from moderate cancer risk families. In questionnaires, probands described their perception of the DNA-test result (i.e., recollections and interpretations of cancer risks and heredity likelihood). Relatives described the communication process, their perception, and impact (i.e., medical decisions, distress, quality of life, and life changes). Bootstrap analysis was used to analyze mediation effects. Results: The relatives' own perception strongly predicted breast self-examination, breast/ovarian surveillance or surgery, levels of distress and quality of life, and amount of reported life changes. The extent to which the proband had communicated the DNA-test result in an understandable, direct, reassuring way, predicted the relatives' perception. The actual communicated relatives' cancer risks or the proband's perception did not predict relatives' perception and impact measures. Family characteristics influenced the communication process but not the relatives' perception and outcomes. Discussion: Relatives seem to make poorly informed decisions on the basis of their own perception, which was unrelated to the information that probands had communicated on the basis of the actual communicated result. Therefore, genetic counselors may guide probands in the communication process and may directly inform relatives, if possible. Genet Med 2011:13(4):333-341. Show less
Previous studies on the counsellees' perception of DNA test results did not clarify whether counsellees were asked about their recollections or interpretations, and focused only on patients' own... Show morePrevious studies on the counsellees' perception of DNA test results did not clarify whether counsellees were asked about their recollections or interpretations, and focused only on patients' own risks and not on the likelihood that cancer is heritable in the family. We tested differences and correlations of four perception aspects: recollections and interpretations of both cancer risks and heredity likelihood. In a retrospective study, women tested for BRCA1/2 on average, 5 years ago, completed questionnaires about their perception. Participants had received an unclassified variant (n = 76), uninformative (n = 76) or pathogenic mutation (n = 51) result in BRCA1/2. Analyses included t-tests, correlations and structural equation modelling. The counsellees' perception showed to consist of four distinctive phenomena: recollections and interpretations of cancer risks and of heredity likelihood. This distinctiveness was suggested by significant differences between these perception variables. Moderate to strong correlations were found between these variables, suggesting that these differences between variables were consistent. The relationships between these variables were not influenced by actually communicated DNA test results, sociodemographics, medical and pedigree information, or framing of cancer risk questions. The largest differences between recollections and interpretations were found in the unclassified variant group and the smallest in uninformatives. Cancer risks and heredity likelihood correlated least in the pathogenic mutation group. Communication of ambiguous genetic information enlarged the differences. To understand the counsellees' perception of genetic counselling, researchers should study recollections and interpretations of cancer risks and heredity likelihood. Genetic counsellors should explicitly address the counsellees' recollections and interpretations, and be aware of possible inaccuracies. Show less
Objective of this paper is to study how DNA-test result information was communicated and perceived within families. A retrospective descriptive study in 13 probands with a BRCA1/2 unclassified... Show moreObjective of this paper is to study how DNA-test result information was communicated and perceived within families. A retrospective descriptive study in 13 probands with a BRCA1/2 unclassified variant, 7 with a pathogenic mutation, 5 with an uninformative result, and in 44, 14, and 12 of their 1st and 2nd degree relatives respectively. We examined differences and correlations between: (a) information actually communicated (b) probands' perception, (c) relatives' perception. The perception consisted of recollections and interpretations of both their own and their relatives' cancer-risks, and heredity-likelihood (i.e. likelihood that cancer is heritable in the family). Differences and low correlations suggested few similarities between the actually communicated information, the probands' and the relatives' perception. More specifically, probands recalled the communicated information differently compared with the actually communicated information (R = .40), and reinterpreted this information differently (R = .30). The relatives' perception was best correlated with the proband's interpretation (R = .08), but this perception differed significantly from their proband's perception. Finally, relatives reinterpreted the information they received from their proband differently (R = .25), and this interpretation was only slightly related with the original message communicated by the genetic-counsellor (R = .15). Unclassified-variants were most frequently misinterpreted by probands and relatives, and had the largest differences between probands' and relatives' perceptions. Like in a children's whisper-game, many errors occur in the transmission of DNA-test result information in families. More attention is required for how probands disseminate information to relatives. Genetic-counsellors may help by supporting the probands in communicating to relatives, e.g. by providing clear summary letters for relatives. Show less
Vos J, Oosterwijk JC, Gómez-García E, Menko FH, Jansen AM, Stoel RD, van Asperen CJ, Tibben A, Stiggelbout AM. Perceiving cancer-risks and heredity-likelihood in genetic-counseling: how counselees... Show moreVos J, Oosterwijk JC, Gómez-García E, Menko FH, Jansen AM, Stoel RD, van Asperen CJ, Tibben A, Stiggelbout AM. Perceiving cancer-risks and heredity-likelihood in genetic-counseling: how counselees recall and interpret BRCA 1/2-test results. Previous studies on the counsellees' perception of DNA test results did not clarify whether counsellees were asked about their recollections or interpretations, and focused only on patients' own risks and not on the likelihood that cancer is heritable in the family. We tested differences and correlations of four perception aspects: recollections and interpretations of both cancer risks and heredity likelihood. In a retrospective study, women tested for BRCA1/2 on average, 5 years ago, completed questionnaires about their perception. Participants had received an unclassified variant (n = 76), uninformative (n = 76) or pathogenic mutation (n = 51) result in BRCA1/2. Analyses included t-tests, correlations and structural equation modelling. The counsellees' perception showed to consist of four distinctive phenomena: recollections and interpretations of cancer risks and of heredity likelihood. This distinctiveness was suggested by significant differences between these perception variables. Moderate to strong correlations were found between these variables, suggesting that these differences between variables were consistent. The relationships between these variables were not influenced by actually communicated DNA test results, sociodemographics, medical and pedigree information, or framing of cancer risk questions. The largest differences between recollections and interpretations were found in the unclassified variant group and the smallest in uninformatives. Cancer risks and heredity likelihood correlated least in the pathogenic mutation group. Communication of ambiguous genetic information enlarged the differences. To understand the counsellees' perception of genetic counselling, researchers should study recollections and interpretations of cancer risks and heredity likelihood. Genetic counsellors should explicitly address the counsellees' recollections and interpretations, and be aware of possible inaccuracies. Show less
