Back to Browse Journals » Comparative Effectiveness Research » Volume 1

Telemedicine vs in-person cancer genetic counseling: measuring satisfaction and conducting economic analysis

Authors Datta SK, Buchanan AH, Hollowell GP, Beresford HF, Marcom PK, Adams MB

Published Date May 2011 Volume 2011:1 Pages 43—50

DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/CER.S19179

Published 19 May 2011

Santanu K Datta1,2, Adam H Buchanan3, Gail P Hollowell4, Henry F Beresford5, Paul K Marcom1,3, Martha B Adams1,6
1
Department of Medicine, Duke University; 2Center for Health Services Research in Primary Care, Durham VA Medical Center; 3Duke Cancer Institute, Duke University; 4Department of Biology, North Carolina Central University; 5School of Nursing, Duke University; 6Department of Community and Family Medicine, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA

Abstract: Cancer genetic counseling (CGC) provides benefits and is the standard of care for individuals at increased risk of having a hereditary cancer syndrome. CGC services are typically centered in urban medical centers, leading to limited access to counseling in rural communities. Telemedicine has the potential to improve access to CGC, increase efficient use of genetic counselors, and improve patient care in rural communities. For telemedicine CGC to gain wide acceptance and implementation it needs to be shown that individuals who receive telemedicine CGC have high satisfaction levels and that CGC is cost-effective; however little research has been conducted to measure the impact of telemedicine CGC. This paper describes the design and methodology of a randomized controlled trial comparing telemedicine with in-person CGC. Measurement of patient satisfaction and effectiveness outcomes are described, as is measurement of costs that are included in an economic analysis. Study design and methodologies used are presented as a contribution to future comparative effectiveness investigations in the telemedicine genetic counseling field.

Keywords: cancer genetics, genetic counseling, rural health services, telemedicine, satisfaction, cost

Download Article [PDF] 

Creative Commons License This work is published by Dove Medical Press Limited, and licensed under Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. The full terms of the License are available at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. Permissions beyond the scope of the License are administered by Dove Medical Press Limited. Information on how to request permission may be found at: http://www.dovepress.com/permissions.php

Readers of this article also read:

The association between the migration inhibitory factor -173G/C polymorphism and cancer risk: a meta-analysis

Zhang X, Weng WH, Xu W, Wang YL, Yu WJ, Tang X, Ma LF, Pan QH, Wang JY, Sun FY

OncoTargets and Therapy 2015, 8:601-613

Published Date: 10 March 2015

The prevalence and consequences of malnutrition risk in elderly Albanian intensive care unit patients

Shpata V, Ohri I, Nurka T, Prendushi X

Clinical Interventions in Aging 2015, 10:481-486

Published Date: 16 February 2015

Value of portal venous system radiological indices in predicting esophageal varices

Gaduputi V, Patel H, Sakam S, Neshangi S, Ahmed R, Lombino M, Chilimuri S

Clinical and Experimental Gastroenterology 2015, 8:89-93

Published Date: 9 February 2015

Diabetes reversal via gene transfer: building on successes in animal models

Gerace D, Martiniello-Wilks R, Simpson AM

Research and Reports in Endocrine Disorders 2015, 5:15-29

Published Date: 29 January 2015

Transmyocardial revascularization devices: technology update

Kindzelski BA, Zhou Y, Horvath KA

Medical Devices: Evidence and Research 2015, 8:11-19

Published Date: 18 December 2014

Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin-II receptor blockers: do future research needs differ across disease states?

Crowley MJ, Powers BJ, Myers ER, McCrory DC, McBroom AJ, Sanders GD

Comparative Effectiveness Research 2013, 3:1-9

Published Date: 10 January 2013