Why the study?
What are the patient experiences and impediments to DNA testing and cascade screening for hypertrophic cardiomyopathy and long QT syndrome?
What are the patient experiences and impediments to DNA testing and cascade screening for hypertrophic cardiomyopathy and long QT syndrome?
Patient ambivalence and family communication dilemmas represent significant impediments to effective cascade screening for inherited cardiac conditions.
Patient ambivalence and family dilemmas may impede cascade screening; leaves open targeted interventions to improve uptake in inherited cardiac conditions.
This paper reports data from a qualitative study of patient experiences of DNA testing and cascade screening for hypertrophic cardiomyopathy and long QT syndrome, cardiac conditions that place sufferers at risk of sudden death. The paper particularly focuses on potential impediments to testing and screening. Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with a purposive sample of 27 people in the UK who had undergone testing. In the context of the uncertainties that can characterize experiences of these disorders, the majority of participants in this sample embraced testing and screening as a way of providing health information for themselves or their relatives (particularly children). There was nevertheless evidence of ambivalence about the value and impact of the DNA test information which could influence participants' dispositions toward testing, and play into dilemmas about family communication. Other concerns arose in relation to communicating about these disorders, decisions to involve elderly relatives and pressures relating to family responsibility. The evidence of ambivalence provides insight into why some people may be resistant to testing, screening and sharing information. The findings about communication processes indicate potential areas of concern for the cascading process.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Andrew Smart (2010) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: