Cancer genetics: consultants' perceptions of their roles, confidence and satisfaction with knowledge

Siobhan McCann, Domhnall MacAuley, Yvonne Barnett, Brendan Bunting, Aoife Bradley, Lisa Jeffers, Patrick J. Morrison

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Rationale, aims and objectives Genetic testing for susceptibility for common cancers is widely available. Cancer specialists and specialists in other areas may have a role in identifying and referring patients who would benefit from a consultation with a specialist in genetics. This study aimed to find out which consultants believed that genetic testing was relevant to their practice. We also wanted to determine their views of their roles in relation to genetic testing, their confidence in these roles, and the value of different educational tools. Methods This was a self-completed, cross-sectional, postal survey of all the consultants in Northern Ireland (n = 520, response rate = 59.3%) identified from the Central Services Agency list. Results Three hundred and ninety questionnaires were returned (44%). A total of 28.6% did not complete the questionnaire stating that genetics was not relevant to their practice. Few consultants reported having consultations related to genetic disease, receiving training in genetics and referring to genetics services. There was some dissatisfaction with their current knowledge of genetics and they believed that guidelines and educational tools may be useful. The respondents lacked confidence in undertaking some of their roles. Through their responses to the cancer scenarios, these consultants showed that they would offer appropriate advice and referrals. Many consultants did not know if family history information should be provided to insurance companies. Conclusions Some consultants may require further training to enable them to fulfil their roles in relation to genetics. Tools or guidelines to assist with referral decisions may also be useful. Consultants may need clearer guidance regarding the provision of family history information to insurance companies.
LanguageEnglish
Pages276-286
JournalJournal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice
Volume13
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Apr 2007

Fingerprint

Consultants
Genetic Testing
Referral and Consultation
Neoplasms
Insurance
Genetic Services
Guidelines
Northern Ireland
Inborn Genetic Diseases
Genetic Predisposition to Disease
Cross-Sectional Studies
Surveys and Questionnaires

Cite this

McCann, Siobhan ; MacAuley, Domhnall ; Barnett, Yvonne ; Bunting, Brendan ; Bradley, Aoife ; Jeffers, Lisa ; Morrison, Patrick J. / Cancer genetics: consultants' perceptions of their roles, confidence and satisfaction with knowledge. In: Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice. 2007 ; Vol. 13, No. 2. pp. 276-286.
@article{b3b0f24ada87422ead6976505b62945a,
title = "Cancer genetics: consultants' perceptions of their roles, confidence and satisfaction with knowledge",
abstract = "Rationale, aims and objectives Genetic testing for susceptibility for common cancers is widely available. Cancer specialists and specialists in other areas may have a role in identifying and referring patients who would benefit from a consultation with a specialist in genetics. This study aimed to find out which consultants believed that genetic testing was relevant to their practice. We also wanted to determine their views of their roles in relation to genetic testing, their confidence in these roles, and the value of different educational tools. Methods This was a self-completed, cross-sectional, postal survey of all the consultants in Northern Ireland (n = 520, response rate = 59.3{\%}) identified from the Central Services Agency list. Results Three hundred and ninety questionnaires were returned (44{\%}). A total of 28.6{\%} did not complete the questionnaire stating that genetics was not relevant to their practice. Few consultants reported having consultations related to genetic disease, receiving training in genetics and referring to genetics services. There was some dissatisfaction with their current knowledge of genetics and they believed that guidelines and educational tools may be useful. The respondents lacked confidence in undertaking some of their roles. Through their responses to the cancer scenarios, these consultants showed that they would offer appropriate advice and referrals. Many consultants did not know if family history information should be provided to insurance companies. Conclusions Some consultants may require further training to enable them to fulfil their roles in relation to genetics. Tools or guidelines to assist with referral decisions may also be useful. Consultants may need clearer guidance regarding the provision of family history information to insurance companies.",
author = "Siobhan McCann and Domhnall MacAuley and Yvonne Barnett and Brendan Bunting and Aoife Bradley and Lisa Jeffers and Morrison, {Patrick J.}",
year = "2007",
month = "4",
doi = "10.1111/j.1365-2753.2006.00695.x",
language = "English",
volume = "13",
pages = "276--286",
journal = "Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice",
issn = "1356-1294",
number = "2",

}

Cancer genetics: consultants' perceptions of their roles, confidence and satisfaction with knowledge. / McCann, Siobhan; MacAuley, Domhnall; Barnett, Yvonne; Bunting, Brendan; Bradley, Aoife; Jeffers, Lisa; Morrison, Patrick J.

In: Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, Vol. 13, No. 2, 04.2007, p. 276-286.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Cancer genetics: consultants' perceptions of their roles, confidence and satisfaction with knowledge

AU - McCann, Siobhan

AU - MacAuley, Domhnall

AU - Barnett, Yvonne

AU - Bunting, Brendan

AU - Bradley, Aoife

AU - Jeffers, Lisa

AU - Morrison, Patrick J.

PY - 2007/4

Y1 - 2007/4

N2 - Rationale, aims and objectives Genetic testing for susceptibility for common cancers is widely available. Cancer specialists and specialists in other areas may have a role in identifying and referring patients who would benefit from a consultation with a specialist in genetics. This study aimed to find out which consultants believed that genetic testing was relevant to their practice. We also wanted to determine their views of their roles in relation to genetic testing, their confidence in these roles, and the value of different educational tools. Methods This was a self-completed, cross-sectional, postal survey of all the consultants in Northern Ireland (n = 520, response rate = 59.3%) identified from the Central Services Agency list. Results Three hundred and ninety questionnaires were returned (44%). A total of 28.6% did not complete the questionnaire stating that genetics was not relevant to their practice. Few consultants reported having consultations related to genetic disease, receiving training in genetics and referring to genetics services. There was some dissatisfaction with their current knowledge of genetics and they believed that guidelines and educational tools may be useful. The respondents lacked confidence in undertaking some of their roles. Through their responses to the cancer scenarios, these consultants showed that they would offer appropriate advice and referrals. Many consultants did not know if family history information should be provided to insurance companies. Conclusions Some consultants may require further training to enable them to fulfil their roles in relation to genetics. Tools or guidelines to assist with referral decisions may also be useful. Consultants may need clearer guidance regarding the provision of family history information to insurance companies.

AB - Rationale, aims and objectives Genetic testing for susceptibility for common cancers is widely available. Cancer specialists and specialists in other areas may have a role in identifying and referring patients who would benefit from a consultation with a specialist in genetics. This study aimed to find out which consultants believed that genetic testing was relevant to their practice. We also wanted to determine their views of their roles in relation to genetic testing, their confidence in these roles, and the value of different educational tools. Methods This was a self-completed, cross-sectional, postal survey of all the consultants in Northern Ireland (n = 520, response rate = 59.3%) identified from the Central Services Agency list. Results Three hundred and ninety questionnaires were returned (44%). A total of 28.6% did not complete the questionnaire stating that genetics was not relevant to their practice. Few consultants reported having consultations related to genetic disease, receiving training in genetics and referring to genetics services. There was some dissatisfaction with their current knowledge of genetics and they believed that guidelines and educational tools may be useful. The respondents lacked confidence in undertaking some of their roles. Through their responses to the cancer scenarios, these consultants showed that they would offer appropriate advice and referrals. Many consultants did not know if family history information should be provided to insurance companies. Conclusions Some consultants may require further training to enable them to fulfil their roles in relation to genetics. Tools or guidelines to assist with referral decisions may also be useful. Consultants may need clearer guidance regarding the provision of family history information to insurance companies.

U2 - 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2006.00695.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2006.00695.x

M3 - Article

VL - 13

SP - 276

EP - 286

JO - Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice

T2 - Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice

JF - Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice

SN - 1356-1294

IS - 2

ER -