Cargando…

Identifying patients with a history of ovarian cancer for referral for genetic counselling: non-randomised comparison of two case-finding strategies in primary care

BACKGROUND: Recent guidelines recommend genetic counselling and DNA testing (GCT) for patients with ovarian cancer and survivors of ovarian cancer. Finding survivors of ovarian cancer is challenging. Detecting and referring them for GCT via primary care, to allow proper screening recommendations for...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Helsper, Charles W, Van Vliet, Liesbeth M, Velthuizen, Mary E, de Wit, Niek J, Beijaert, Roy PH, Butter, Els, van Gent-Wagemakers, Marleen PL, Witteveen, Els O, Zweemer, Ronald P, van Dulmen, Sandra M, Ausems, Margreet GEM
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Royal College of General Practitioners 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6193781/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30348886
http://dx.doi.org/10.3399/bjgp18X699533
_version_ 1783364122931363840
author Helsper, Charles W
Van Vliet, Liesbeth M
Velthuizen, Mary E
de Wit, Niek J
Beijaert, Roy PH
Butter, Els
van Gent-Wagemakers, Marleen PL
Witteveen, Els O
Zweemer, Ronald P
van Dulmen, Sandra M
Ausems, Margreet GEM
author_facet Helsper, Charles W
Van Vliet, Liesbeth M
Velthuizen, Mary E
de Wit, Niek J
Beijaert, Roy PH
Butter, Els
van Gent-Wagemakers, Marleen PL
Witteveen, Els O
Zweemer, Ronald P
van Dulmen, Sandra M
Ausems, Margreet GEM
author_sort Helsper, Charles W
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Recent guidelines recommend genetic counselling and DNA testing (GCT) for patients with ovarian cancer and survivors of ovarian cancer. Finding survivors of ovarian cancer is challenging. Detecting and referring them for GCT via primary care, to allow proper screening recommendations for patients and their family, may be a solution. AIM: To compare the effectiveness and acceptance of two pilot strategies directed at case finding women with a history of ovarian cancer for referral for GCT by their GP. DESIGN AND SETTING: Non-randomised comparison of the pilot implementation of two case-finding strategies for women with a history of ovarian cancer in Dutch primary care from May 2016 to April 2017. METHOD: Strategy A (unsupported) asked GPs to identify and refer eligible patients with a history of ovarian cancer. Strategy B (ICT-supported) provided GPs with information and communication technology (ICT) support to identify patients with a history of ovarian cancer electronically. The effectiveness of each strategy was assessed as the proportion of patients who were approached, referred for GCT, and seen by the clinical geneticist. Acceptance of each strategy was assessed by the intervention uptake of GP practices and GP and patient questionnaires. RESULTS: Nineteen out of 30 (63%) patients identified with a history of ovarian cancer were deemed eligible for referral for strategy A, and 39 out of 94 (41%) for strategy B. For each strategy, eight patients were referred and five (63%) were seen for GCT. The intervention uptake by GP practices was 31% (11 out of 36) for strategy A and 46% (21 out of 46) for strategy B. GPs considered ‘relevance’ and ‘workability’ as facilitators across both strategies whereas, for strategy B, technical barriers hindered implementation. CONCLUSION: The effectiveness and acceptance of both strategies for case finding of survivors of ovarian cancer in primary care for GCT is promising, but larger studies are required before wide-scale implementation is warranted.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6193781
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Royal College of General Practitioners
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-61937812018-11-06 Identifying patients with a history of ovarian cancer for referral for genetic counselling: non-randomised comparison of two case-finding strategies in primary care Helsper, Charles W Van Vliet, Liesbeth M Velthuizen, Mary E de Wit, Niek J Beijaert, Roy PH Butter, Els van Gent-Wagemakers, Marleen PL Witteveen, Els O Zweemer, Ronald P van Dulmen, Sandra M Ausems, Margreet GEM Br J Gen Pract Research BACKGROUND: Recent guidelines recommend genetic counselling and DNA testing (GCT) for patients with ovarian cancer and survivors of ovarian cancer. Finding survivors of ovarian cancer is challenging. Detecting and referring them for GCT via primary care, to allow proper screening recommendations for patients and their family, may be a solution. AIM: To compare the effectiveness and acceptance of two pilot strategies directed at case finding women with a history of ovarian cancer for referral for GCT by their GP. DESIGN AND SETTING: Non-randomised comparison of the pilot implementation of two case-finding strategies for women with a history of ovarian cancer in Dutch primary care from May 2016 to April 2017. METHOD: Strategy A (unsupported) asked GPs to identify and refer eligible patients with a history of ovarian cancer. Strategy B (ICT-supported) provided GPs with information and communication technology (ICT) support to identify patients with a history of ovarian cancer electronically. The effectiveness of each strategy was assessed as the proportion of patients who were approached, referred for GCT, and seen by the clinical geneticist. Acceptance of each strategy was assessed by the intervention uptake of GP practices and GP and patient questionnaires. RESULTS: Nineteen out of 30 (63%) patients identified with a history of ovarian cancer were deemed eligible for referral for strategy A, and 39 out of 94 (41%) for strategy B. For each strategy, eight patients were referred and five (63%) were seen for GCT. The intervention uptake by GP practices was 31% (11 out of 36) for strategy A and 46% (21 out of 46) for strategy B. GPs considered ‘relevance’ and ‘workability’ as facilitators across both strategies whereas, for strategy B, technical barriers hindered implementation. CONCLUSION: The effectiveness and acceptance of both strategies for case finding of survivors of ovarian cancer in primary care for GCT is promising, but larger studies are required before wide-scale implementation is warranted. Royal College of General Practitioners 2018-11 2018-10-23 /pmc/articles/PMC6193781/ /pubmed/30348886 http://dx.doi.org/10.3399/bjgp18X699533 Text en © British Journal of General Practice 2018 This article is Open Access: CC BY-NC 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/).
spellingShingle Research
Helsper, Charles W
Van Vliet, Liesbeth M
Velthuizen, Mary E
de Wit, Niek J
Beijaert, Roy PH
Butter, Els
van Gent-Wagemakers, Marleen PL
Witteveen, Els O
Zweemer, Ronald P
van Dulmen, Sandra M
Ausems, Margreet GEM
Identifying patients with a history of ovarian cancer for referral for genetic counselling: non-randomised comparison of two case-finding strategies in primary care
title Identifying patients with a history of ovarian cancer for referral for genetic counselling: non-randomised comparison of two case-finding strategies in primary care
title_full Identifying patients with a history of ovarian cancer for referral for genetic counselling: non-randomised comparison of two case-finding strategies in primary care
title_fullStr Identifying patients with a history of ovarian cancer for referral for genetic counselling: non-randomised comparison of two case-finding strategies in primary care
title_full_unstemmed Identifying patients with a history of ovarian cancer for referral for genetic counselling: non-randomised comparison of two case-finding strategies in primary care
title_short Identifying patients with a history of ovarian cancer for referral for genetic counselling: non-randomised comparison of two case-finding strategies in primary care
title_sort identifying patients with a history of ovarian cancer for referral for genetic counselling: non-randomised comparison of two case-finding strategies in primary care
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6193781/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30348886
http://dx.doi.org/10.3399/bjgp18X699533
work_keys_str_mv AT helspercharlesw identifyingpatientswithahistoryofovariancancerforreferralforgeneticcounsellingnonrandomisedcomparisonoftwocasefindingstrategiesinprimarycare
AT vanvlietliesbethm identifyingpatientswithahistoryofovariancancerforreferralforgeneticcounsellingnonrandomisedcomparisonoftwocasefindingstrategiesinprimarycare
AT velthuizenmarye identifyingpatientswithahistoryofovariancancerforreferralforgeneticcounsellingnonrandomisedcomparisonoftwocasefindingstrategiesinprimarycare
AT dewitniekj identifyingpatientswithahistoryofovariancancerforreferralforgeneticcounsellingnonrandomisedcomparisonoftwocasefindingstrategiesinprimarycare
AT beijaertroyph identifyingpatientswithahistoryofovariancancerforreferralforgeneticcounsellingnonrandomisedcomparisonoftwocasefindingstrategiesinprimarycare
AT butterels identifyingpatientswithahistoryofovariancancerforreferralforgeneticcounsellingnonrandomisedcomparisonoftwocasefindingstrategiesinprimarycare
AT vangentwagemakersmarleenpl identifyingpatientswithahistoryofovariancancerforreferralforgeneticcounsellingnonrandomisedcomparisonoftwocasefindingstrategiesinprimarycare
AT witteveenelso identifyingpatientswithahistoryofovariancancerforreferralforgeneticcounsellingnonrandomisedcomparisonoftwocasefindingstrategiesinprimarycare
AT zweemerronaldp identifyingpatientswithahistoryofovariancancerforreferralforgeneticcounsellingnonrandomisedcomparisonoftwocasefindingstrategiesinprimarycare
AT vandulmensandram identifyingpatientswithahistoryofovariancancerforreferralforgeneticcounsellingnonrandomisedcomparisonoftwocasefindingstrategiesinprimarycare
AT ausemsmargreetgem identifyingpatientswithahistoryofovariancancerforreferralforgeneticcounsellingnonrandomisedcomparisonoftwocasefindingstrategiesinprimarycare