Dataset Information

Online genetic counseling from the providers' perspective: counselors' evaluations and a time and cost analysis.

ABSTRACT: Telemedicine applications are increasingly being introduced in patient care in various disciplines, including clinical genetics, mainly to increase access to care and to reduce time and costs for patients and professionals. Most telegenetics reports describe applications in large geographical areas, showing positive patients' and professionals' satisfaction. One economic analysis published thus far reported lower costs than in-person care. We hypothesized that telegenetics can also be beneficial from the professional's view in relatively small geographical areas. We performed a pilot study in the Northern Netherlands of 51 home-based online counseling sessions for cardiogenetic and oncogenetic cascade screening, and urgent prenatal counseling. Previously, we showed patient satisfaction, anxiety, and perceived control of online counseling to be comparable to in-person counseling. This study focuses on expectations, satisfaction, and practical evaluations of the involved counselors, and the impact in terms of time and costs. Most counselors expected disadvantages of online counseling for themselves and their patients, mainly concerning insufficient non-verbal communication; few expected advantages for themselves. Afterwards, counselors additionally raised the disadvantage of insufficient verbal communication, and reported frequent technical problems. Their overall mean telemedicine satisfaction itemscore was 3.38 before, and 2.95 afterwards, being afterwards slightly below the minimum level we set for a satisfactory result. We estimated reduced time and costs by online counseling with about 8% and 10-12%, respectively. We showed online genetic counseling to be effective, feasible and cost-efficient, but technical improvements are needed to increase counselors' satisfaction.

SUBMITTER: Otten E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4989197 | biostudies-other | 2016 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Studies have consistently indicated that the majority of individuals meeting the US Prevention Services Task Force guidelines for genetic testing have not had genetic counseling or testing. Despite increased availability and lower costs of multiplex cancer gene panels, there remains a gap in genetics services that has not been addressed by the current care delivery models. Lower cost of DNA sequencing with online patient-initiated ordering could increase test availability, but the ideal quantity and delivery method of patient education is not known. We hypothesized that online genetic education and testing with access to board certified genetic counselors could improve access to genetic testing while maintaining test quality and clinical utility. The MAGENTA (MAking GENetic Testing Accessible) trial is a nationwide randomized study designed to compare the effectiveness of online genetic education with pre- and post-test telephone genetic counseling to three potentially more accessible alternative approaches: online genetic education with optional telephone counseling, online genetic education with required pre-test telephone genetic counseling, and online genetic education with required post-test telephone genetic counseling. METHODS:3000 women nationwide will undergo genetic testing for 19 hereditary cancer genes. This is a randomized four-arm non-inferiority study with equal randomization. The four study arms were selected to independently assess the delivery of genetic information both before and after genetic testing (pre-test and post-test) by either requiring telephone genetic counseling or providing only online education with optional telephone counseling. Patients have post-test telephone counseling when testing positive for a pathogenic inherited mutation in all four arms. Surveys measuring psychological, behavioral and cognitive state are completed online at baseline, 3 months, 12 months and 24 months post-results disclosure. The primary study outcome is cancer-risk distress at 3 months post-result disclosure. DISCUSSION:This trial will assess the use of a genetic service model using online access and electronic education, while evaluating the need for personal pre- and post-test genetic counseling. Data from this study may lead to increased options for delivery of genetic testing and possibly increase access to genetic testing. Identifying more individuals with inherited cancer susceptibility will allow targeted cancer prevention. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02993068 (registered December 14, 2016).

Project description:ObjectivesWhile the costs and outcomes of cochlear implantation (CI) have been widely assessed, most of these analyses were solely performed from the perspective of healthcare costs. This study assesses the costs and benefits of CI in the Netherlands from a broader societal perspective, including health outcomes, healthcare cost, educational cost, and productivity losses and gains.DesignThe cost and benefits of CI were analyzed in this cost-benefit analysis, in which a monetary value is put on both the resources needed and the outcomes of CI. The costs and benefits were analyzed by prototypical instances of three groups, representing the majority of cochlear implant patients: prelingually deaf children implanted at the age of 1, adults with progressive profound hearing loss implanted at the age of 40 and seniors implanted at the age of 70 with progressive profound hearing loss. Costs and benefits were estimated over the expected lifetimes of the members of each group, using a Markov state transition model. Model parameters and assumptions were based on published literature. Probabilistic and one-way sensitivity analyses were performed.ResultsIn all three patient groups, the total benefits of CI exceeded the total cost, leading to a net benefit of CI. Prelingually deaf children with a bilateral CI had a lifetime positive outcome net benefit of €433,000. Adults and seniors with progressive profound hearing loss and a unilateral CI had a total net benefit of €275,000 and €76,000, respectively. These results ensue from health outcomes expressed in monetary terms, reduced educational cost, and increased productivity.ConclusionsBased on estimates from modeling, the increased healthcare costs due to CI were more than compensated by the value of the health benefits and by savings in educational and productivity costs. In particular, for children and working adults, the societal benefit was positive even without taking health benefits into account. Therefore, CI generates an advantage for both patients and society.

Project description:Background and objectivesThe aim was to systematically review whether the reporting and analysis of trial-based cost-effectiveness evaluations in the field of obstetrics and gynaecology comply with guidelines and recommendations, and whether this has improved over time.Data sources and selection criteriaA literature search was performed in MEDLINE, the NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED) and the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) database to identify trial-based cost-effectiveness evaluations in obstetrics and gynaecology published between January 1, 2000 and May 16, 2017. Studies performed in middle- and low-income countries and studies related to prevention, midwifery, and reproduction were excluded.Data collection and analysisReporting quality was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standard (CHEERS) statement (a modified version with 21 items, as we focused on trial-based cost-effectiveness evaluations) and the statistical quality was assessed using a literature-based list of criteria (8 items). Exploratory regression analyses were performed to assess the association between reporting and statistical quality scores and publication year.ResultsThe electronic search resulted in 5482 potentially eligible studies. Forty-five studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria, 22 in obstetrics and 23 in gynaecology. Twenty-seven (60%) studies did not adhere to 50% (n = 10) or more of the reporting quality items and 32 studies (71%) did not meet 50% (n = 4) or more of the statistical quality items. As for the statistical quality, no study used the appropriate method to assess cost differences, no advanced methods were used to deal with missing data, and clustering of data was ignored in all studies. No significant improvements over time were found in reporting or statistical quality in gynaecology, whereas in obstetrics a significant improvement in reporting and statistical quality was found over time.LimitationsThe focus of this review was on trial-based cost-effectiveness evaluations in obstetrics and gynaecology, so further research is needed to explore whether results from this review are generalizable to other medical disciplines.Conclusions and implications of key findingsThe reporting and analysis of trial-based cost-effectiveness evaluations in gynaecology and obstetrics is generally poor. Since this can result in biased results, incorrect conclusions, and inappropriate healthcare decisions, there is an urgent need for improvement in the methods of cost-effectiveness evaluations in this field.

Dataset Information

Online genetic counseling from the providers' perspective: counselors' evaluations and a time and cost analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets