| Title |
Comparing Outcomes of Genetic Counseling Options in Breast and Ovarian Cancer: An Integrative Review.
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Oncology Nursing Forum, January 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1188/18.onf.96-105 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Danielle M Fournier, Angela F Bazzell, Joyce E Dains |
| Abstract |
Genetic counseling is vital in helping people at high risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) make informed decisions to undergo BRCA testing. Many people, particularly those in rural locations, lack access to these services. This review examines evidence to determine if remotely delivered genetic counseling via telephone or telemedicine is an effective alternative to in-person counseling for people who are at high risk for HBOC. . A literature review was completed by searching PubMed, SCOPUS, and CINAHL® databases. . 151 articles were identified from the search, and 7 were included in the review. . Patients' BRCA knowledge acquisition, cancer-specific distress, anxiety, depression, and satisfaction with mode of counseling delivery were equivalent between in-person and remotely delivered counseling groups. Genetic testing rates were significantly higher in participants receiving in-person counseling. Remotely delivered genetic counseling was more convenient and less expensive. Mixed outcomes existed regarding counselor-patient communication. . The demand for genetic counseling will grow as advances in cancer genomics reveal genes that may contribute to cancer predisposition. Innovative delivery models are necessary to ensure that all people have access to care. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 125 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 125 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 20 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 17 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 6% |
| Researcher | 7 | 6% |
| Unspecified | 7 | 6% |
| Other | 21 | 17% |
| Unknown | 45 | 36% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 22 | 18% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 14 | 11% |
| Psychology | 9 | 7% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 8 | 6% |
| Unspecified | 7 | 6% |
| Other | 18 | 14% |
| Unknown | 47 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 January 2018.
All research outputs
#15,486,175
of 23,012,811 outputs
Outputs from Oncology Nursing Forum
#401
of 641 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#269,763
of 442,345 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Oncology Nursing Forum
#3
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,012,811 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 641 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.4. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 442,345 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.