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:

Vitamin D status and hypertension: a review

Ke L, Mason RS, Kariuki M, Mpofu E, Brock KE

Integrated Blood Pressure Control 2015, 8:13-35

Published Date: 8 April 2015

Update on the management of rosacea

Weinkle AP, Doktor V, Emer J

Clinical, Cosmetic and Investigational Dermatology 2015, 8:159-177

Published Date: 7 April 2015

Understanding kangaroo care and its benefits to preterm infants

Campbell-Yeo ML, Disher TC, Benoit BL, Johnston CC

Pediatric Health, Medicine and Therapeutics 2015, 6:15-32

Published Date: 18 March 2015

Untreated hepatocellular carcinoma in Egypt: outcome and prognostic factors

Zeeneldin AA, Salem SE, Darwish AD, El-Gammal MM, Hussein MM, Saadeldin M

Journal of Hepatocellular Carcinoma 2015, 2:3-9

Published Date: 30 January 2015

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

Topical azithromycin or ofloxacin for endophthalmitis

Stewart MW, Stewart ML

Clinical Ophthalmology 2013, 7:35-38

Published Date: 31 December 2012

Corrigendum: Softec HD hydrophilic acrylic intraocular lens: biocompatibility and precision

Espandar L, Sikder S, Moshirfar M

Clinical Ophthalmology 2011, 5:159-160

Published Date: 6 February 2011