Breast Cancer Clinical Trial
Official title:
Is it Feasible?: Self-Affirmation for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Genetic Counseling
Verified date | June 29, 2020 |
Source | National Institutes of Health Clinical Center (CC) |
Contact | n/a |
Is FDA regulated | No |
Health authority | |
Study type | Interventional |
Background: Some women have a high chance of developing breast and ovarian cancer because of a change in a gene that is passed within a family from one generation to the next. These women with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) have to make hard choices about tests and treatments. Researchers want to study how to help women to feel ready to make those choices. A kind of writing exercise might help if it is done before genetic counseling. This writing exercise is called a self-affirmation (SA) exercise. It may lead to better communication during counseling and better behavioral outcomes. Objective: To see if an SA exercise done before HBOC genetic counseling could improve client communication and behavior. Eligibility: - Clients: Adult female >=18 years of age with initial appointment for HBOC risk with genetic counselor at St. Luke's Health System - Genetic Counselors: Genetic counselors >=18 years of age providing genetic counseling to clients at risk for HBOC Design: Clients will be screened by phone prior to their genetic counseling appointment. They will arrive 15 minutes early to their appointment. They will do a 10 to 15 minute survey and writing exercise. This includes questions about: - Things that are important to them - How they are feeling prior to the appointment After their genetic counseling appointment, they will take a 10- to 15-minute follow-up survey. It can be in the office or online. It will include questions about: - How they felt about the writing exercise - How they felt about their genetic counseling - If they had cancer - If they were offered and had genetic testing Genetic counselor participants will take a 2 to 5 minute survey after each session with a client in the study. This will include questions about how the client was in the session. They also will take a 10 to 15 minute survey at the end of the study. It will be about their opinions on the process of having their clients complete the writing exercise.
Status | Completed |
Enrollment | 47 |
Est. completion date | June 29, 2020 |
Est. primary completion date | June 29, 2020 |
Accepts healthy volunteers | No |
Gender | Female |
Age group | 18 Years and older |
Eligibility | INCLUSION CRITERIA: Client Participants: - Must be female, at least 18 years old - Have an initial appointment for genetic counseling for HBOC risk at St. Luke's Health System - Must be able to read and write in English to participate - Pregnant women will be included Genetic Counselor (GC) Participants: -Must be certified GCs who see clients with an indication for HBOC related genetic counseling at St. Luke's Health System EXCLUSION CRITERIA: - Non-English speakers and illiterate subjects will be excluded - Clients who are unable to provide consent will be excluded |
Country | Name | City | State |
---|---|---|---|
United States | St. Luke's Health System | Kansas City | Missouri |
Lead Sponsor | Collaborator |
---|---|
National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) |
United States,
Ferrer RA, Klein WM, Graff KA. Self-affirmation increases defensiveness toward health risk information among those experiencing negative emotions: Results from two national samples. Health Psychol. 2017 Apr;36(4):380-391. doi: 10.1037/hea0000460. Epub 201 — View Citation
Harris PR, Napper L. Self-affirmation and the biased processing of threatening health-risk information. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2005 Sep;31(9):1250-63. — View Citation
Kaphingst KA, Facio FM, Cheng MR, Brooks S, Eidem H, Linn A, Biesecker BB, Biesecker LG. Effects of informed consent for individual genome sequencing on relevant knowledge. Clin Genet. 2012 Nov;82(5):408-15. doi: 10.1111/j.1399-0004.2012.01909.x. Epub 201 — View Citation
Scherr CL, Christie J, Vadaparampil ST. Breast Cancer Survivors' Knowledge of Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer following Genetic Counseling: An Exploration of General and Survivor-Specific Knowledge Items. Public Health Genomics. 2016;19(1):1-10. doi: — View Citation
Type | Measure | Description | Time frame | Safety issue |
---|---|---|---|---|
Primary | Test Uptake: Number of Clients Who Indicated Intention to Have Genetic Testing | Intention to have genetic testing was measured with a single survey item, "Do you plan to have genetic testing?" with response options of yes=1; maybe=2; no=3 | Assessed within 1 week after completing the genetic counseling session | |
Primary | Number of Clients Who Indicated "Intention to Talk With Family" About Genetic Testing Result | Intention to talk with family was measured with a single categorical survey item, "Which best describes your plans to talk with your family members about genetic testing results (check the one answer that is most true for you)?" | Assessed within 1 week after completing the genetic counseling session | |
Primary | Likelihood of Talking With Family Members | Likelihood of talking with family members was measured with a single survey item on a 7 point scale, "How likely are you to share results with the relatives you selected?" with 1= Extremely unlikely; 7=Extremely likely | Assessed within 1 week after completing the genetic counseling session | |
Primary | Decision Self-efficacy: Ability to Confidently Make Decision About Genetic Testing | Decision Self-efficacy was measured with the 12 item Decision Self-efficacy Scale by O'Connor, 1995. Scores ranged from 1-5 with higher average scores indicating higher decision self-efficacy | Assessed within 1 week after completing the genetic counseling session | |
Primary | Client Knowledge: Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer (HBOC) Knowledge Post Counselling Session | Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer (HBOC) Knowledge was measured with an adapted 7-question scale based on the National Center for Human Genome Research Knowledge (NCHGRK) Scale [Scherr et al. 2015; Kaphingst et al. 2012]. All questions in the scale were presented as True/False. Each question in the scale had a correct answer (coded as 1) and incorrect answer (coded as 0). This adapted HBOC Knowledge Scale score was calculated by summing the total value across the seven questions, with a range of 0 (minimum score, all incorrect) to 7 (maximum score, all correct). Higher score indicates higher knowledge. | Assessed within one week after completing the genetic counseling session | |
Primary | Patient Empowerment (Client Completed): Ability to Manage Information and Risk Associated With Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer (HBOC) (Decisional Control, Cognitive Control, Behavioral Control, Emotional Regulation, and Hope) | Patient empowerment (client completed) was measured with the 24 item Genetic Counseling Outcomes Scale (GCOS-24; McAllister et al, 2011) using 7-point score ranging from 1=strongly disagree to 7= strongly agree. Higher scores indicate higher empowerment. | Assessed within one week after completing the genetic counseling session | |
Primary | Patient Empowerment (Genetic Counselor Completed): Client's Ability to Manage Information and Risk Associated With HBOC (Decisional Control, Cognitive Control, Behavioral Control, Emotional Regulation, and Hope) | Patient empowerment (genetic counselor completed) was measured with the 24 item Genetic Counseling Outcomes Scale (GCOS-24; McAllister et al, 2011) using 7-point score ranging from 1=strongly disagree to 7= strongly agree. Higher scores indicate higher empowerment | Assessed immediately after completing the genetic counseling visit | |
Secondary | Mammogram Intention After Counseling: Likelihood of Getting a Mammogram | Mammogram intention was measured with a single survey item on a 7 point scale "How likely are you to get regular mammograms?" with 1= Extremely unlikely to 7=Extremely likely | Assessed within one week after completing the genetic counseling session | |
Secondary | Client Anxiety After Writing Exercise and Prior to Counseling | Patient anxiety was measured using the 6 item short version of the Spielberger State Anxiety Scale, a 4-point scale; 1= not at all, 2=somewhat, 3=moderately, 4= very much. Higher score indicates higher anxiety | Assessed immediately after completing the writing exercise and prior to the genetic counseling session | |
Secondary | Perceived Effect of Writing Exercise on Genetic Counseling Visit: Number of Clients With Perceived Effect of Intervention After Writing Exercise | Perceived effect of writing exercise on genetic counseling visit was measured using a single item "The values writing activity affected my appointment"; 1=yes; 2=no | Assessed within one week after completing the genetic counseling session | |
Secondary | Perception That Writing Exercise Hindered Genetic Counseling Visit: Number of Clients | Perception that writing exercise hindered the genetic counseling visit was measured using a single survey item "The values writing activity hindered my interaction with my genetic counselor"; 1=yes; 2=no | Assessed within one week after completing the genetic counseling session | |
Secondary | Perception That Intervention Improved Genetic Counseling Visit: Number of Clients | Perception that intervention improved the genetic counseling visit was measured using a single survey item "The values writing activity improved my interaction with my genetic counselor"; 1=yes; 2=no | Within 1 week after completing the genetic counseling session | |
Secondary | Level of Engagement With the Writing Exercise: Number of Words in Writing Intervention | Number of words in writing intervention was measured by counting the number of words in the essay written by the client | At the time of the intervention | |
Secondary | Level of Engagement With the Writing Exercise: Number of Words in Writing Intervention Discussing Importance of Selected Value | Number of Words in Writing Intervention Discussing Importance of Selected Value was measured by counting the number of words in the essay written by the client that were in phrases that were focused on discussing the importance of the selected value, as coded by two coders. | At the time of the intervention | |
Secondary | Level of Engagement With the Writing Exercise: Number of Words in Writing Intervention Discussing How Value Was Recently Used | Number of Words in Writing Intervention Discussing How Value Was Recently Used was measured by counting the number of words in the essay written by the client that were in phrases that were focused on discussing how the value was recently used. | At the time of the intervention | |
Secondary | Level of Engagement With the Writing Exercise: Number of Examples of How Value Was Recently Used | Number of Examples of How Value was Recently Used was measured by counting the number of unique examples offered in the essay as coded by two coders. | At the time of the intervention | |
Secondary | Level of Engagement With the Writing Exercise: Essay Attitude Strength | Essay Attitude Strength is a measure of the extent to which the participant's essay demonstrated the importance of the value selected during the writing exercise. Two independent raters read a subset of the essays and used a scoring system based on the procedure described in Harris & Napper (2005). Each rater gave the participant's essay a numeric score between 1 and 7, and the two scores were examined for inter-rater reliability. The primary rater then rated the remaining essays and the final score was the rating assigned by the primary rater for all essays. A score of 1 (minimum) indicated that the selected value appeared to be not at all important to the participant. A score of 7 (maximum) indicated that the selected value appeared to be very important to the participant. | At the time of the intervention | |
Secondary | Level of Engagement With the Writing Exercise: Self-affirmation Score | Self-affirmation score is a measure of the extent to which the essay appeared to be self-affirming for the participant. Two independent raters scored a subset of essays using a system based on procedures described in Harris & Napper (2005) and Ferrer et al. (2017) using the following instructions: "Setting aside your own opinions and values, how self-affirmed would you estimate the writer of this passage to have been (at the end)?" Raters scored each essay and the two scores were examined for inter-rater reliability. The primary rater then rated the remaining essays and the final score was the rating assigned by the primary rater for all essays. A score of 1 (minimum) indicated the value was important but did not include descriptions of why the value was important to the participant. A control group participant received a score of 1 if they followed the writing activity's instructions exactly. A score of 5 (maximum) indicated that the essay elaborated on why the value was important. | At the time of the intervention |
Status | Clinical Trial | Phase | |
---|---|---|---|
Recruiting |
NCT04681911 -
Inetetamab Combined With Pyrotinib and Chemotherapy in the Treatment of HER2 Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer
|
Phase 2 | |
Completed |
NCT04890327 -
Web-based Family History Tool
|
N/A | |
Terminated |
NCT04066790 -
Pyrotinib or Trastuzumab Plus Nab-paclitaxel as Neoadjuvant Therapy in HER2-positive Breast Cancer
|
Phase 2 | |
Completed |
NCT03591848 -
Pilot Study of a Web-based Decision Aid for Young Women With Breast Cancer, During the Proposal for Preservation of Fertility
|
N/A | |
Recruiting |
NCT03954197 -
Evaluation of Priming Before in Vitro Maturation for Fertility Preservation in Breast Cancer Patients
|
N/A | |
Terminated |
NCT02202746 -
A Study to Assess the Safety and Efficacy of the VEGFR-FGFR-PDGFR Inhibitor, Lucitanib, Given to Patients With Metastatic Breast Cancer
|
Phase 2 | |
Active, not recruiting |
NCT01472094 -
The Hurria Older PatiEnts (HOPE) With Breast Cancer Study
|
||
Recruiting |
NCT06049446 -
Combining CEM and Magnetic Seed Localization of Non-Palpable Breast Tumors
|
||
Recruiting |
NCT06057636 -
Hypnosis for Pain in Black Women With Advanced Breast Cancer: A Feasibility Study
|
N/A | |
Recruiting |
NCT05560334 -
A Single-Arm, Open, Exploratory Clinical Study of Pemigatinib in the Treatment of HER2-negative Advanced Breast Cancer Patients With FGFR Alterations
|
Phase 2 | |
Active, not recruiting |
NCT05501769 -
ARV-471 in Combination With Everolimus for the Treatment of Advanced or Metastatic ER+, HER2- Breast Cancer
|
Phase 1 | |
Recruiting |
NCT04631835 -
Phase I Study of the HS-10352 in Patients With Advanced Breast Cancer
|
Phase 1 | |
Completed |
NCT04307407 -
Exercise in Breast Cancer Survivors
|
N/A | |
Recruiting |
NCT03544762 -
Correlation of 16α-[18F]Fluoro-17β-estradiol PET Imaging With ESR1 Mutation
|
Phase 3 | |
Terminated |
NCT02482389 -
Study of Preoperative Boost Radiotherapy
|
N/A | |
Enrolling by invitation |
NCT00068003 -
Harvesting Cells for Experimental Cancer Treatments
|
||
Completed |
NCT00226967 -
Stress, Diurnal Cortisol, and Breast Cancer Survival
|
||
Recruiting |
NCT06019325 -
Rhomboid Intercostal Plane Block on Chronic Pain Incidence and Acute Pain Scores After Mastectomy
|
N/A | |
Recruiting |
NCT06037954 -
A Study of Mental Health Care in People With Cancer
|
N/A | |
Recruiting |
NCT06006390 -
CEA Targeting Chimeric Antigen Receptor T Lymphocytes (CAR-T) in the Treatment of CEA Positive Advanced Solid Tumors
|
Phase 1/Phase 2 |