Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2006
Genetic services for men: the preferences of men with a family history of prostate cancer.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Gaff Clara L, Cowan Ruth, Meiser Bettina, Lindeman Geoffrey
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Men have a lower uptake of genetic services than women; however, the specific needs and preferences of men at risk of genetic conditions other than hereditary breast ovarian cancer are not known. We ascertain the information preferences of men with a family history of prostate cancer.
METHODS: Unaffected men and their partners were administered a written questionnaire.
RESULTS: Responses were received from 280 men (response rate: 59.2%) and 174 partners (response rate: 74%). Most men (59.6%) reported having insufficient information about their risk and wanted further information about personal risk (93.2%) and risk management (93.6%). Strikingly, 56.3% preferred to receive information related only to positive outcomes. Urologists were the preferred source of information, but there was considerable interest in a multidisciplinary service approach significantly associated with the number of affected relatives (odds ratio = 1.94, P < .002). Partners' level of concern was not associated with interest in multidisciplinary services, satisfaction with information, or support received.
CONCLUSIONS: Delivering services to men at risk will require a multifaceted approach by primary care providers and specialists. Challenges include meeting men's expectations in the face of uncertain medical knowledge, engaging those at high risk in multidisciplinary services, and delivering tailored information to those at lower risk.
METHODS: Unaffected men and their partners were administered a written questionnaire.
RESULTS: Responses were received from 280 men (response rate: 59.2%) and 174 partners (response rate: 74%). Most men (59.6%) reported having insufficient information about their risk and wanted further information about personal risk (93.2%) and risk management (93.6%). Strikingly, 56.3% preferred to receive information related only to positive outcomes. Urologists were the preferred source of information, but there was considerable interest in a multidisciplinary service approach significantly associated with the number of affected relatives (odds ratio = 1.94, P < .002). Partners' level of concern was not associated with interest in multidisciplinary services, satisfaction with information, or support received.
CONCLUSIONS: Delivering services to men at risk will require a multifaceted approach by primary care providers and specialists. Challenges include meeting men's expectations in the face of uncertain medical knowledge, engaging those at high risk in multidisciplinary services, and delivering tailored information to those at lower risk.