Health care professionals’ attitudes towards population-based genetic testing and risk-stratification for ovarian cancer: a cross-sectional survey

BMC Women's Health

Research Article

Madeleine Freeman¹  Jo Waller¹  Saskia C. Sanderson²  Anne Lanceley³  Katie E. J. Hann³  Lindsay Fraser³  Sue Gessler³  Ian Jacobs⁴  Lucy Side⁵ 

[1] Department of Behavioural Science and Health, Institute of Epidemiology and Health Care, University College London, London, UK;Department of Behavioural Science and Health, Institute of Epidemiology and Health Care, University College London, London, UK;Great Ormond Street Hospital, London, UK;Department of Women’s Cancer, EGA UCL Institute for Women’s Health, University College London, 74 Huntley Street, WC1E 6AU, London, UK;Department of Women’s Cancer, EGA UCL Institute for Women’s Health, University College London, 74 Huntley Street, WC1E 6AU, London, UK;The University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia;Department of Women’s Cancer, EGA UCL Institute for Women’s Health, University College London, 74 Huntley Street, WC1E 6AU, London, UK;University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK;

关键词: Health care professionals;    Ovarian cancer;    Genetic testing;    Risk stratification;   

DOI  :  10.1186/s12905-017-0488-6

 received in 2017-05-08, accepted in 2017-11-30,  发布年份 2017

来源: Springer

【 摘 要 】

BackgroundOvarian cancer is usually diagnosed at a late stage when outcomes are poor. Personalised ovarian cancer risk prediction, based on genetic and epidemiological information and risk stratified management in adult women could improve outcomes. Examining health care professionals’ (HCP) attitudes to ovarian cancer risk stratified management, willingness to support women, self-efficacy (belief in one’s own ability to successfully complete a task), and knowledge about ovarian cancer will help identify training needs in anticipation of personalised ovarian cancer risk prediction being introduced.MethodsAn anonymous survey was distributed online to HCPs via relevant professional organisations in the UK. Kruskal-Wallis tests and pairwise comparisons were used to compare knowledge and self-efficacy scores between different types of HCPs, and attitudes toward population-based genetic testing and risk stratified management were described. Content analysis was undertaken of free text responses concerning HCPs willingness to discuss risk management options with women.ResultsOne hundred forty-six eligible HCPs completed the survey: oncologists (31%); genetics clinicians (30%); general practitioners (22%); gynaecologists (10%); nurses (4%); and ‘others’. Scores for knowledge of ovarian cancer and genetics, and self-efficacy in conducting a cancer risk consultation were generally high but significantly lower for general practitioners compared to genetics clinicians, oncologists, and gynaecologists. Support for population-based genetic testing was not high (<50%). Attitudes towards ovarian cancer risk stratification were mixed, although the majority of participants indicated a willingness to discuss management options with patients.ConclusionsLarger samples are required to investigate attitudes to population-based genetic testing for ovarian cancer risk and to establish why some HCPs are hesitant to offer testing to all adult female patients. If ovarian cancer risk assessment using genetic testing and non-genetic information including epidemiological information is rolled out on a population basis, training will be needed for HCPs in primary care to enable them to provide appropriate support to women at each stage of the process.

【 授权许可】

CC BY   
© The Author(s). 2017