Pre-counseling education materials for BRCA testing: Does tailoring make a difference?

Celette Sugg Skinner, Barbara K. Rimer, Joellen M. Schildkraut, Donald Berry, Brian Calingaert, P. Kelly Marcom, Jeremy Sugarman, Eric P. Winer, J. Dirk Iglehart, P. Andrew Futreal

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

53 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Although tailored print materials (TPMs) have been assessed for a variety of behavioral targets, their effectiveness as decision aids for genetic testing had not been evaluated at the time this study began. We compared TPMs and non-tailored print material (NPMs) that included similar content about genetic testing for breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility. TPMs were prepared especially for an individual based on information from and about her. We mailed baseline surveys to 461 women referred by physicians or identified through a tumor registry. All had personal and family histories of breast and/or ovarian cancer and, on the basis of these histories, an estimated ≥10% probability of carrying a mutation in the breast/ovarian cancer genes BRCA1 or BRCA2. The 325 (70%) who responded were randomly assigned to receive TPM or NPM. Follow-up surveys, mailed 2 weeks following receipt of print materials, were returned by 262 women (81% of baseline responders). Participants were predominately white (94%) and well-educated (50% college graduates). The mean age was 49 years. At follow-up, TPM recipients exhibited significantly greater improvement in percent of correct responses for the 13-item true/false measure of knowledge (24% increase for TPM vs. 16% for NPM; p < 0.0001) and significantly less over-estimation of risk of being a mutation carrier (40% TPM group overestimated vs. 70% NPM; p < 0.0001). Anxiety did not differ significantly between groups. Reactions to materials differed on two items: "seemed to be prepared just for me" (76% TPM vs. 52% NPM; p < 0.001) and "told me what I wanted to know about BRCA1 and 2 testing" (98% TPM vs. 91% NPM; p < 0.05). TPMs showed an advantage in increasing knowledge and enhancing accuracy of perceived risk. Both are critical components of informed decision making.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)93-105
Number of pages13
JournalGenetic Testing
Volume6
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 2002

Fingerprint

Materials Testing
Ovarian Neoplasms
Counseling
Genetic Testing
Breast Neoplasms
Education
Women Physicians
Mutation
Time and Motion Studies
Decision Support Techniques
Neoplasm Genes
Registries
Decision Making
Anxiety
Neoplasms
Surveys and Questionnaires

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Genetics(clinical)

Cite this

Skinner, C. S., Rimer, B. K., Schildkraut, J. M., Berry, D., Calingaert, B., Marcom, P. K., ... Futreal, P. A. (2002). Pre-counseling education materials for BRCA testing: Does tailoring make a difference? Genetic Testing, 6(2), 93-105. https://doi.org/10.1089/10906570260199348

Pre-counseling education materials for BRCA testing : Does tailoring make a difference? / Skinner, Celette Sugg; Rimer, Barbara K.; Schildkraut, Joellen M.; Berry, Donald; Calingaert, Brian; Marcom, P. Kelly; Sugarman, Jeremy; Winer, Eric P.; Iglehart, J. Dirk; Futreal, P. Andrew.

In: Genetic Testing, Vol. 6, No. 2, 06.2002, p. 93-105.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Skinner, CS, Rimer, BK, Schildkraut, JM, Berry, D, Calingaert, B, Marcom, PK, Sugarman, J, Winer, EP, Iglehart, JD & Futreal, PA 2002, 'Pre-counseling education materials for BRCA testing: Does tailoring make a difference?', Genetic Testing, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 93-105. https://doi.org/10.1089/10906570260199348
Skinner, Celette Sugg ; Rimer, Barbara K. ; Schildkraut, Joellen M. ; Berry, Donald ; Calingaert, Brian ; Marcom, P. Kelly ; Sugarman, Jeremy ; Winer, Eric P. ; Iglehart, J. Dirk ; Futreal, P. Andrew. / Pre-counseling education materials for BRCA testing : Does tailoring make a difference?. In: Genetic Testing. 2002 ; Vol. 6, No. 2. pp. 93-105.
@article{35d74784967d448094c993233323dd6c,
title = "Pre-counseling education materials for BRCA testing: Does tailoring make a difference?",
abstract = "Although tailored print materials (TPMs) have been assessed for a variety of behavioral targets, their effectiveness as decision aids for genetic testing had not been evaluated at the time this study began. We compared TPMs and non-tailored print material (NPMs) that included similar content about genetic testing for breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility. TPMs were prepared especially for an individual based on information from and about her. We mailed baseline surveys to 461 women referred by physicians or identified through a tumor registry. All had personal and family histories of breast and/or ovarian cancer and, on the basis of these histories, an estimated ≥10{\%} probability of carrying a mutation in the breast/ovarian cancer genes BRCA1 or BRCA2. The 325 (70{\%}) who responded were randomly assigned to receive TPM or NPM. Follow-up surveys, mailed 2 weeks following receipt of print materials, were returned by 262 women (81{\%} of baseline responders). Participants were predominately white (94{\%}) and well-educated (50{\%} college graduates). The mean age was 49 years. At follow-up, TPM recipients exhibited significantly greater improvement in percent of correct responses for the 13-item true/false measure of knowledge (24{\%} increase for TPM vs. 16{\%} for NPM; p < 0.0001) and significantly less over-estimation of risk of being a mutation carrier (40{\%} TPM group overestimated vs. 70{\%} NPM; p < 0.0001). Anxiety did not differ significantly between groups. Reactions to materials differed on two items: {"}seemed to be prepared just for me{"} (76{\%} TPM vs. 52{\%} NPM; p < 0.001) and {"}told me what I wanted to know about BRCA1 and 2 testing{"} (98{\%} TPM vs. 91{\%} NPM; p < 0.05). TPMs showed an advantage in increasing knowledge and enhancing accuracy of perceived risk. Both are critical components of informed decision making.",
author = "Skinner, {Celette Sugg} and Rimer, {Barbara K.} and Schildkraut, {Joellen M.} and Donald Berry and Brian Calingaert and Marcom, {P. Kelly} and Jeremy Sugarman and Winer, {Eric P.} and Iglehart, {J. Dirk} and Futreal, {P. Andrew}",
year = "2002",
month = "6",
doi = "10.1089/10906570260199348",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "6",
pages = "93--105",
journal = "Genetic Testing and Molecular Biomarkers",
issn = "1945-0265",
publisher = "Mary Ann Liebert Inc.",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Pre-counseling education materials for BRCA testing

T2 - Does tailoring make a difference?

AU - Skinner, Celette Sugg

AU - Rimer, Barbara K.

AU - Schildkraut, Joellen M.

AU - Berry, Donald

AU - Calingaert, Brian

AU - Marcom, P. Kelly

AU - Sugarman, Jeremy

AU - Winer, Eric P.

AU - Iglehart, J. Dirk

AU - Futreal, P. Andrew

PY - 2002/6

Y1 - 2002/6

N2 - Although tailored print materials (TPMs) have been assessed for a variety of behavioral targets, their effectiveness as decision aids for genetic testing had not been evaluated at the time this study began. We compared TPMs and non-tailored print material (NPMs) that included similar content about genetic testing for breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility. TPMs were prepared especially for an individual based on information from and about her. We mailed baseline surveys to 461 women referred by physicians or identified through a tumor registry. All had personal and family histories of breast and/or ovarian cancer and, on the basis of these histories, an estimated ≥10% probability of carrying a mutation in the breast/ovarian cancer genes BRCA1 or BRCA2. The 325 (70%) who responded were randomly assigned to receive TPM or NPM. Follow-up surveys, mailed 2 weeks following receipt of print materials, were returned by 262 women (81% of baseline responders). Participants were predominately white (94%) and well-educated (50% college graduates). The mean age was 49 years. At follow-up, TPM recipients exhibited significantly greater improvement in percent of correct responses for the 13-item true/false measure of knowledge (24% increase for TPM vs. 16% for NPM; p < 0.0001) and significantly less over-estimation of risk of being a mutation carrier (40% TPM group overestimated vs. 70% NPM; p < 0.0001). Anxiety did not differ significantly between groups. Reactions to materials differed on two items: "seemed to be prepared just for me" (76% TPM vs. 52% NPM; p < 0.001) and "told me what I wanted to know about BRCA1 and 2 testing" (98% TPM vs. 91% NPM; p < 0.05). TPMs showed an advantage in increasing knowledge and enhancing accuracy of perceived risk. Both are critical components of informed decision making.

AB - Although tailored print materials (TPMs) have been assessed for a variety of behavioral targets, their effectiveness as decision aids for genetic testing had not been evaluated at the time this study began. We compared TPMs and non-tailored print material (NPMs) that included similar content about genetic testing for breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility. TPMs were prepared especially for an individual based on information from and about her. We mailed baseline surveys to 461 women referred by physicians or identified through a tumor registry. All had personal and family histories of breast and/or ovarian cancer and, on the basis of these histories, an estimated ≥10% probability of carrying a mutation in the breast/ovarian cancer genes BRCA1 or BRCA2. The 325 (70%) who responded were randomly assigned to receive TPM or NPM. Follow-up surveys, mailed 2 weeks following receipt of print materials, were returned by 262 women (81% of baseline responders). Participants were predominately white (94%) and well-educated (50% college graduates). The mean age was 49 years. At follow-up, TPM recipients exhibited significantly greater improvement in percent of correct responses for the 13-item true/false measure of knowledge (24% increase for TPM vs. 16% for NPM; p < 0.0001) and significantly less over-estimation of risk of being a mutation carrier (40% TPM group overestimated vs. 70% NPM; p < 0.0001). Anxiety did not differ significantly between groups. Reactions to materials differed on two items: "seemed to be prepared just for me" (76% TPM vs. 52% NPM; p < 0.001) and "told me what I wanted to know about BRCA1 and 2 testing" (98% TPM vs. 91% NPM; p < 0.05). TPMs showed an advantage in increasing knowledge and enhancing accuracy of perceived risk. Both are critical components of informed decision making.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0036591550&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0036591550&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1089/10906570260199348

DO - 10.1089/10906570260199348

M3 - Article

C2 - 12215248

AN - SCOPUS:0036591550

VL - 6

SP - 93

EP - 105

JO - Genetic Testing and Molecular Biomarkers

JF - Genetic Testing and Molecular Biomarkers

SN - 1945-0265

IS - 2

ER -