Patient-reported disease knowledge and educational needs in Lynch syndrome: findings of an interactive multidisciplinary patient conference

Sarah A Bannon, Maureen Mork, Eduardo Vilar, Susan K Peterson, Karen Lu, Patrick M Lynch, Miguel A Rodriguez-Bigas, Yiqian Nancy You, Sarah A Bannon, Maureen Mork, Eduardo Vilar, Susan K Peterson, Karen Lu, Patrick M Lynch, Miguel A Rodriguez-Bigas, Yiqian Nancy You

Abstract

Background: Patients with Lynch Syndrome, the most common hereditary colorectal cancer syndrome, benefit from genetic education and family counseling regarding diagnostic testing and cancer surveillance/prevention recommendations. Although genetic counseling is currently the most common venue where such education and counseling takes place, little is known about the level of disease knowledge and education needs as directly reported by patients and families with Lynch Syndrome. Furthermore, experiences with forums for larger-scale knowledge transfer have been limited in the current literature.

Methods: We conducted a one-day interactive multidisciplinary patient conference, designed to complement individual genetic counseling for updating disease knowledge, supportive networking and needs assessment among Lynch Syndrome patients and their family members. The patient conference was designed utilizing the conceptual framework of action research. Paired pre- and post-conference surveys were administered to 44 conference participants anonymously to assess patient-reported disease knowledge and education needs.

Results: A multidisciplinary team of expert providers utilized a variety of educational formats during the one-day conference. Four main focus areas were: genetic testing, surveillance/prevention, living with Lynch Syndrome, and update on research. Thirty-two participants (73%) completed the pre-conference, and 28 (64%) participants completed the post-conference surveys. Nineteen respondents were affected and the remaining were unaffected. The scores of the disease-knowledge items significantly increased from 84% pre- to 92% post-conference (p = 0.012). Patients reported a high level of satisfaction and identified further knowledge needs in nutrition (71%), surveillance/prevention options (71%), support groups (36%), cancer risk assessment (32%), active role in medical care (32%), and research opportunities (5%).

Conclusion: Our experience with a dedicated patient education conference focused on Lynch Syndrome demonstrated that such an educational format is effective for updating or reinforcing disease knowledge, for identifying patient-reported unmet educational needs, as well as for peer-support.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Education needs as reported by Lynch syndrome patients.

References

    1. Bonadona V, Bonaiti B, Olschwang S, Grandjouan S, Huiart L, Longy M, Guimbaud R, Buecher B, Bignon YJ, Caron O. et al.Cancer risks associated with germline mutations in MLH1, MSH2, and MSH6 genes in Lynch syndrome. JAMA. 2011;305:2304–2310. doi: 10.1001/jama.2011.743.
    1. Stoffel E, Mukherjee B, Raymond VM, Tayob N, Kastrinos F, Sparr J, Wang F, Bandipalliam P, Syngal S, Gruber SB. Calculation of risk of colorectal and endometrial cancer among patients with Lynch syndrome. Gastroenterology. 2009;137:1621–1627. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2009.07.039.
    1. Win AK, Lindor NM, Young JP, Macrae FA, Young GP, Williamson E, Parry S, Goldblatt J, Lipton L, Winship I. et al.Risks of primary extracolonic cancers following colorectal cancer in lynch syndrome. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2012;104:1363–1372. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djs351.
    1. Capelle LG, Van Grieken NC, Lingsma HF, Steyerberg EW, Klokman WJ, Bruno MJ, Vasen HF, Kuipers EJ. Risk and epidemiological time trends of gastric cancer in Lynch syndrome carriers in the Netherlands. Gastroenterology. 2010;138:487–492. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2009.10.051.
    1. Weissman SM, Bellcross C, Bittner CC, Freivogel ME, Haidle JL, Kaurah P, Leininger A, Palaniappan S, Steenblock K, Vu TM, Daniels MS. Genetic counseling considerations in the evaluation of families for Lynch syndrome–a review. J Genet Couns. 2011;20:5–19. doi: 10.1007/s10897-010-9325-x.
    1. Lindor NM, Petersen GM, Hadley DW, Kinney AY, Miesfeldt S, Lu KH, Lynch P, Burke W, Press N. Recommendations for the care of individuals with an inherited predisposition to Lynch syndrome: a systematic review. JAMA. 2006;296:1507–1517. doi: 10.1001/jama.296.12.1507.
    1. Evaluation of Genomic Applications in P, Prevention Working G. Recommendations from the EGAPP Working Group: genetic testing strategies in newly diagnosed individuals with colorectal cancer aimed at reducing morbidity and mortality from Lynch syndrome in relatives. Genet Med. 2009;11:35–41.
    1. Stoffel EM, Garber JE, Grover S, Russo L, Johnson J, Syngal S. Cancer surveillance is often inadequate in people at high risk for colorectal cancer. J Med Genet. 2003;40:e54. doi: 10.1136/jmg.40.5.e54.
    1. Ketabi Z, Mosgaard BJ, Gerdes AM, Ladelund S, Bernstein IT. Awareness of endometrial cancer risk and compliance with screening in hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer. Obstet Gynecol. 2012;120:1005–1012.
    1. Metcalfe KA, Birenbaum-Carmeli D, Lubinski J, Gronwald J, Lynch H, Moller P, Ghadirian P, Foulkes WD, Klijn J, Friedman E. et al.International variation in rates of uptake of preventive options in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Int J Cancer. 2008;122:2017–2022. doi: 10.1002/ijc.23340.
    1. Battista RN, Blancquaert I, Laberge AM, van Schendel N, Leduc N. Genetics in health care: an overview of current and emerging models. Public Health Genomics. 2012;15:34–45. doi: 10.1159/000328846.
    1. Hawkins AK, Hayden MR. A grand challenge: providing benefits of clinical genetics to those in need. Genet Med. 2011;13:197–200. doi: 10.1097/GIM.0b013e31820c056e.
    1. Espenschied CR, MacDonald DJ, Culver JO, Sand S, Hurley K, Banks KC, Weitzel JN, Blazer KR. Closing the loop: action research in a multimodal hereditary cancer patient conference is an effective tool to assess and address patient needs. J Cancer Educ. 2012;27:467–477. doi: 10.1007/s13187-012-0373-9.
    1. Nolen AL, Putten JV. Action research in education: Addressing gaps in ethical principles and practices. Educational Researcher. 2007;36:401–407. doi: 10.3102/0013189X07309629.

Source: PubMed

3
Abonnieren