Factors associated with an individuals’ decision to withdraw from genetic counseling for BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes mutations: are personality traits involved?

Abstract

The aim of the study was to evaluate factors associated with early withdrawal from oncogenetic counseling. A comparison of psycho-social and personality characteristics of two samples of subjects, attendees and withdrawers was carried out. Self-report questionnaires were completed by 112 individuals who had completed counseling and to 56 individuals who withdrew from it. Individuals with few children (OR. 1,724; p = 0,017; CI = 1,101-2,700), a lower number of cancer affected relatives (OR. 1,301; p = 0,000; CI = 1,145-1,479), and with a lower hypomanic scale score (OR. 1,070; p = 0,004; CI = 1,022-1,121), were more likely to withdraw from counseling. It is important for the counselees to draw more attention to the fact that their cancer risk management and prevention is as fundamental as that of their children. Also, it is important to highlight the fact that having less cancer affected relatives does not necessarily mean being at lower risk. In conclusion, that subjects with low levels of psychological and emotional energy are those who probably need greater psychological support during the decision making process. We deem necessary that psychologists, involved in genetic counseling, investigate these aspects during their sessions in order to implement suitable interventions of psychological support during the entire counseling process.

Sociodemographic, psychosocial and clinical factors associated with uptake of genetic counselling for hereditary cancer: a systematic review

“…The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) was the most commonly used measure of general distress, but scores did not differ significantly between GC attenders and decliners . Other measures of general distress were the Mental Health Index‐5 , the Profile of Mood States and the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory‐2 (MMPI2) .…”

“…Being married was a significant predictor of GC uptake in three studies (20,22,37), and was not significantly associated in eight (19,23,25,27,35,39,42,43).…”

“…Higher level of education was a significant predictor of GC uptake in six studies (20-22, 29, 32, 35); one study observed a positive trend approaching significance (19); and no significant effect of education was observed in seven studies (25,27,37,39,40,42,43).…”

Improving mutation notification when new genetic information is identified in research: a trial of two strategies in familial breast cancer

“…15 However, despite the building data supporting its benefits, uptake of genetic testing by at-risk individuals in the general community remains erratic at best. 16,17 Despite concerted efforts in the research and clinical communities to understand and address barriers to the uptake of genetic counseling and testing by individuals identified to be at increased risk, 18,19 efforts to increase uptake have generally resulted in little change. This is particularly problematic in the context of large-scale research projects in which genetic information about research participants can become available over time.…”

Clinical Risk Factor Analysis for Breast Cancer: 568,000 Subjects Undergoing Breast Cancer Screening in Beijing, 2009

“…It is also well known that genetic mutations in BRCA1 or BRCA2 have been identified as breast cancer risk factors (Bordeleau et al, 2011;Caruso et al, 2011). Although case control studies and cohort studies have already focused on the relationship between risk factors and breast cancer, these risk factors are mostly about lifestyle and reproductive or food factors (John et al, 1999;Verloop et al, 2000;Lillberg et al, 2003;Taylor et al, 2007); therefore, a largescale breast cancer screening (Zakharova et al, 2011) was performed in 16 districts in Beijing, which aimed at early detection of patients with breast cancer for early treatment; furthermore, it aimed at identifying clinical factors including history of disease and breast-related diseases that affect the prevalence of breast cancer and at providing more reliable evidence for clinical diagnostics by using screening data.…”