Hann Katie E J, Fraser Lindsay, Side Lucy, Gessler Sue, Waller Jo, Sanderson Saskia C, Freeman Madeleine, Jacobs Ian, Lanceley Anne
Department of Women's Cancer, EGA UCL Institute for Women's Health, University College London, 74 Huntley Street, London, WC1E 6AU, UK.
University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK.
BMC Womens Health. 2017 Dec 16;17(1):132. doi: 10.1186/s12905-017-0488-6.
Ovarian 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.
An 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.
One 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.
Larger 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.
卵巢癌通常在晚期才被诊断出来,此时治疗效果较差。基于遗传和流行病学信息的个性化卵巢癌风险预测以及成年女性的风险分层管理可能会改善治疗效果。研究医疗保健专业人员(HCP)对卵巢癌风险分层管理的态度、支持女性的意愿、自我效能感(相信自己有能力成功完成一项任务)以及对卵巢癌的了解,将有助于确定在引入个性化卵巢癌风险预测之前的培训需求。
通过英国相关专业组织在线向医疗保健专业人员发放匿名调查问卷。使用Kruskal-Wallis检验和两两比较来比较不同类型医疗保健专业人员之间的知识和自我效能得分,并描述对基于人群的基因检测和风险分层管理的态度。对关于医疗保健专业人员与女性讨论风险管理方案意愿的自由文本回复进行内容分析。
146名符合条件的医疗保健专业人员完成了调查:肿瘤学家(31%);遗传学临床医生(30%);全科医生(22%);妇科医生(10%);护士(4%);以及“其他”。卵巢癌和遗传学知识得分以及进行癌症风险咨询的自我效能感总体较高,但与遗传学临床医生、肿瘤学家和妇科医生相比,全科医生的得分显著较低。对基于人群的基因检测的支持率不高(<50%)。对卵巢癌风险分层的态度不一,尽管大多数参与者表示愿意与患者讨论管理方案。
需要更大的样本量来调查对基于人群的卵巢癌风险基因检测的态度,并确定为什么一些医疗保健专业人员对向所有成年女性患者提供检测犹豫不决。如果基于人群开展使用基因检测和包括流行病学信息在内的非基因信息进行卵巢癌风险评估,初级保健中的医疗保健专业人员将需要接受培训,以便他们能够在该过程的每个阶段为女性提供适当的支持。