Online Screening and Virtual Patient Education for Hereditary Cancer Risk Assessment and Testing.

Autor:	Waldman RN; Associates for Women's Medicine, North Syracuse, New York; Women's Health Connecticut, Waterbury, and Women's Health Connecticut, Manchester, Connecticut; Lifeline Medical Associates, The Women's Care Source, Morristown, New Jersey; Associates for Women's Health Services of Central VA, Inc, Lynchburg, Virginia; and Myriad Genetics Inc, Salt Lake City, Utah., DeFrancesco MS, Feltz JP, Welling DS, Neiman WA, Pearlstone MM, Marraccini CA, Karanik D, Mielcarski E, Schneider L, Lenz L, Smith EC, Taber KJ, Adkins RT
Jazyk:	angličtina
Zdroj:	Obstetrics and gynecology [Obstet Gynecol] 2024 Dec 05. Date of Electronic Publication: 2024 Dec 05.
DOI:	10.1097/AOG.0000000000005799
Abstrakt:	Objective: To use online screening and virtual patient education tools to improve the provision of hereditary cancer risk assessment. Methods: We conducted a prospective, single-arm study in which clinicians at five U.S. community obstetrics and gynecology practices underwent an 8-week observation followed by 3-4 weeks of training on online patient screening and virtual patient education (prerecorded video with or without a genetic counselor phone call) for genetic testing-eligible patients. After a 4-week practice period, hereditary cancer risk assessment and patient education metrics were collected at 8 weeks and compared with preintervention metrics using univariate conditional logistic regression models stratified by site. The primary outcome was the change in genetic testing completion rate. Clinicians and patients were invited to complete a satisfaction survey. Results: A total of 5,795 and 5,135 patients were seen before and after the intervention, respectively. The proportion of screened patients meeting testing guidelines increased from 21.6% before the intervention to 28.2% after the intervention (odds ratio [OR] 1.36, 95% CI, 1.26-1.47, P<.001). Guideline-eligible patients were significantly more likely to be offered genetic testing (59.1% vs 89.1%, OR 2.06, 95% CI, 1.87-2.27, P<.001), to submit a sample (32.9% vs 45.0%, OR 1.49, 95% CI, 1.27-1.74, P<.001), and to complete testing (16.0% vs 34.2%, OR 2.38, 95% CI, 2.00-2.83, P<.001). Most clinicians agreed or strongly agreed that the screening tool improved the identification of patients meeting hereditary cancer risk assessment guidelines (92.1%), saved time (64.9%), and was easy to incorporate (68.4%) and that patient education improved their ability to deliver hereditary cancer risk assessment standard of care (84.2%). Most patients agreed or strongly agreed that virtual education helped them understand the purpose (91.7%) and implications (92.6%) of genetic testing. Conclusion: A guideline-based online patient screening tool and virtual patient education were well received. The online tool enabled identification of significantly more guideline-eligible candidates for hereditary cancer risk assessment, and education improved patients' genetic literacy. Together, these tools ultimately improved the genetic testing completion rate. Competing Interests: Financial Disclosure Lauren Lenz, Logan Schneider, Edith C. Smith, and Katherine Johansen Taber were employees of Myriad Genetics, Inc, at the time of the study and received salary and stock options. Royce T. Adkins, Geri Skidmore, and Dana Karanik are paid consultants for Myriad Genetics, Inc. Wade A. Neiman is a consultant for Cooper Surgical. The other authors did not report any potential conflicts of interest. (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)
Databáze:	MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:	Zobrazit plný text záznamu