Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

Anxiety and depression symptoms among women attending group-based patient education courses for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer

Hereditary Cancer in Clinical Practice201715:2

https://doi.org/10.1186/s13053-016-0062-5

Received: 7 September 2016

Accepted: 30 December 2016

Published: 11 January 2017

Abstract

Background

Women carrying BRCA-mutations are facing significant challenges, including decision making regarding surveillance and risk-reducing surgery. They often report that they are left alone with these important decisions. In order to enhance the genetic counselling session we organized a group-based patient education (GPE) course for women with BRCA-mutations. The study aims were to characterize women attending a group-based patient education (GPE) course for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer, consider the usefulness of the course, evaluate symptoms of anxiety and depression among the participants, and finally investigate whether their levels of anxiety and depression changed from before to after the course session.

Methods

A prospective study was conducted. Two weeks before (T1) and 2 weeks after (T2) attending the GPE-course the participants received questionnaires by mail. We collected information on demographic- and medical variables, anxiety and depression using Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), self-efficacy using The Bergen Genetic Counseling Self-Efficacy scale (BGCSES) and coping style using the Threatening Medical Situations Inventory (TMSI). A total of N = 100 (77% response rate) women participated at baseline and 75 (58% response rate) also completed post-course assessment.

Results

The mean level of anxiety symptoms was elevated among participants but decreased significantly during follow-up. Lower anxiety symptom levels were associated with “longer time since disclosure of gene test result”, “higher levels of self-efficacy” and having experienced “loss of a close relative due to breast or ovarian cancer”. Lower depression symptom levels were associated with “higher levels of education” and “loss of a close relative due to breast or ovarian cancer”.

Conclusion

The women in this study seemed to benefit from the GPE course. Women newly diagnosed with a BRCA mutation who reported lower levels of self-efficacy and lower levels of education were more vulnerable. These women need special attention.

Keywords

Group-based patient education courseGenetic counselingHereditary cancerAnxiety symptomsDepression symptoms

Background

Carriers of mutations in the BRCA1- or BRCA2 gene (breast cancer genes) have a substantially increased risk of both breast and ovarian cancer. The cumulative risk for breast cancer by age 70 has been reported to 45–60% for BRCA1 mutation carriers and 27–55% for BRCA2 mutation carriers with a corresponding risk for ovarian cancer of 31–59% and 6–16.5% for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers, respectively [1, 2]. Beginning at age 25, women with a mutation in either of these genes are offered breast cancer surveillance, including annual mammography and breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Between 35 and 40 years, risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy is recommended [3, 4]. A growing number of women are also opting for risk-reducing bilateral mastectomy [58]. Decisions to have risk-reducing surgeries are both irreversible and existential in nature; they are also associated with both psychosocial burden as well as hope for a longer and healthier life [3, 9, 10].

Genetic counseling is a specialized healthcare service provided by specialists in medical genetics and genetic counselors. It is described as a communication and educational process that deals with the challenges associated with the occurrence, or the risk of occurrence, of a genetic disorder within a family [11]. In the counseling session, it is important to impart information that provides the basis for informed decisions regarding gene testing, surveillance programs, and prophylactic surgery. It is also critical to acknowledge that the genetic information may have a significant impact on the patient’s extended family. The counseling session may trigger ethical dilemmas such as whom should be informed and when the best time may be to pass on the genetic information to children and other family members [6, 12]. Thus, patients need proper counseling and follow-up to make decisions related to these aspects [13]. Genetic counseling is often a one-on-one consultation. Previous research has shown that group-based patient education (GPE) courses are valuable toward empowered decision-making among women [1417] and may serve as a useful supplement to traditional individual counseling.

Over the past decades, several studies have focused on emotional distress among patients seeking genetic counseling for hereditary cancer [6, 12, 18]. Anxiety is a normal reaction to a stressor. It is most often described as the emotion of fear involving feelings of tension, nervousness, apprehension, worry and dread for something perceived as threatening in the future [19]. Mild to moderate anxiety symptoms are vague and unsettling, while severe anxiety symptoms can be extreme and have a serious impact on daily life. Depression has been defined as an emotion of sadness, with feelings of sorrow, hopelessness, gloom, lack of energy and initiative [20]. Anxiety and depression are different conditions, but they commonly occur together [21].

Many factors influence a BRCA mutation carrier’s anxiety and depression levels. Earlier studies have shown that younger age, having children, and experience of breast and ovarian cancer among close relatives are strong predictors of high emotional distress [22, 23]. Self-efficacy and social support seem to play important roles in reducing anxiety and depression levels among patients at risk for hereditary cancer [18]. Previous studies revealed that patients are often satisfied with genetic counseling sessions [24, 25]. Providing medical information and emotional support appears to be important for increasing patients’ satisfaction [12, 26]. Several studies have also shown that a monitoring coping style is related to reduced psychological distress in genetic counseling for hereditary cancer [27, 28]. Other studies have shown that some individuals need additional counseling or different interventions such as GPE courses [1417, 25, 29].

Patient education is a major task for healthcare workers and is incorporated in formal legislation or regulations in several countries [30, 31]. Educating patients and their significant others is considered a part of patient treatment and has been proven to increase compliance with treatment [32]. Learning and Mastery Centers have been established to support the health services with education courses for both patients and health professionals [33]. Previous research indicates a positive effect of GPE courses on psychosocial outcomes such as mental health, coping, and knowledge about their illness [32, 3436]. Group intervention appears to be relevant and highly acceptable to women with a mutation in one of the BRCA genes [8, 16, 17]. Participating in a patient education group seems to help these women make cancer risk management decisions [37]. GPE for BRCA mutation carriers may be the ideal forum for exploring challenges, such as when to share genetic information with the extended family and dealing with the guilt of having passed the mutation on to their children [16]. Interacting with other women with a BRCA mutation also gives patients the opportunity to learn from each other and reinforces a feeling of not being alone [14].

The main goal of the study was to describe the BRCA mutation carriers who attended a GPE course. We also investigated whether the GPE course was experienced as a useful intervention for these women. Finally, we evaluated the characteristics of those with increased levels of anxiety or depression symptoms and whether these symptoms changed from before the course until after.

Methods

Study design and procedures

A prospective study was undertaken in women with BRCA mutations who took part in a GPE course. Two weeks before attending the course, the women received written information about the study, were invited to provide written informed consent and were provided with the first questionnaires (T1). Two weeks after the course (T2), follow-up questionnaires were mailed to those who had provided written informed consent. The Data Protection Official for Haukeland University Hospital approved the study.

Study sample

From October 2011 to August 2013, eight GPE courses were arranged. Both healthy women and women with a personal history of cancer were invited to participate in a course if they fulfilled the following inclusion criteria: over 18 years old, able to read Norwegian, had been to genetic counseling for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer, and were carrying a BRCA mutation. Of the 160 women invited, 130 signed up for a GPE course and received a confirmation phone call from the staff at the Center for Medical Genetics, Haukeland University Hospital.

The group-based patient education (GPE) course

To meet the women’s needs for psychosocial support after genetic counseling and a positive BRCA test result, our GPE course was based on earlier proposals from groups associated with the Norwegian Cancer Society. The GPE course was standardized to a seven-hour session, with a maximum of 20 participants in each course. The primary aims of the course were to support and empower participants to live their lives and make decisions based on information and advice from health professionals, and to provide the opportunity for them to learn from each other. We incorporated a strong user perspective in the planning, implementation, and evaluation of the GPE course. This ensured that the users’ voice was heard and increased the chances of keeping the course patient-focused [33]. See Table 1 for an overview of the themes included in the GPE course.
Table 1

Thematic overview of the GPE course

• User perspective of a women carrying a BRCA mutation who is an “expert by experience” a

• General information about hereditary breast and ovarian cancers and the consequences of being a mutation carrier, including the family perspective

• Information about risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy and hormone replacement therapy

• Medical information about prophylactic bilateral mastectomy

• Discussions about body image and sexuality

• Information from patient networking groups

• Interaction between the course participants in small groups, which gives them an opportunity to learn from each other and reinforce a feeling of not being alone

a “Expert by experience”: a BRCA carrier who received her gene test results several years ago

Study measurements

Sociodemographic and medical variables

The sociodemographic and medical variables included: age, marital status, children, education, cancer or another chronic disease, and time since the genetic test was carried out. We also collected family history of breast and ovarian cancer and asked whether the respondents had experienced loss of significant others.

Standardized evaluation following the GPE course

We used a standardized evaluation developed by the Norwegian National Advisory Unit on Learning and Mastery in Health. It is designed to support quality improvement (NK LMH 2009).

Situation specific self-efficacy

The Bergen Genetic Counseling Self-efficacy Scale (BGCSES) was developed according to Bandura’s guidelines for constructing self-efficacy scales (revised 2001) (Albert Bandura, Stanford University Palo Alto, CA, USA). According to Bandura self-efficacy is a person’s beliefs in own ability to cope with different challenges and to execute some control over environmental events. It was developed by a panel of medical geneticists, genetic counselors and psychologists [18]. The scale consists of 20 items describing tasks and challenges likely to occur during a GPE course, and the individual’s belief in their ability to cope with different challenges. Each item is rated on a scale from 1 (cannot do at all) to 11 (can do without difficulty). The average score of BGCSES for each individual (range 1–11) was used in the present study. Higher scores indicate higher self-efficacy. The reliability of the scale, estimated by Cronbach’s alpha, was 0.85.

Symptoms of anxiety and depression

The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) was used to assess symptoms of anxiety and depression. The questionnaire has two subscales each with seven items that measure symptoms of anxiety and depression, respectively. Each item is scored on a four-point scale. Each total subscale score ranges from 0 to 21 [38]. A score of eight or higher was used as the cut-off for elevated symptoms of both anxiety and depression [39]. In the present study, reliability values for the HADS anxiety and depression subscales, estimated with Cronbach’s alpha, were 0.87 and 0.84, respectively.

Coping style

The Threatening Medical Situation Inventory (TMSI) was used to measure two cognitive coping styles in the domain of medical threat: monitoring (confrontation style) and blunting (avoidance style). The TMSI includes four descriptions of threatening medical situations. Each TMSI situation is followed by three monitoring and three blunting items, arranged in random order, which are scored on a five-points scale from 1 (not at all applicable to me) to 5 (strongly applicable to me). Total monitoring and blunting scores were calculated by summing the relevant items. Ranges for each subscale are 12–60 [40]. Consistent with several other studies, in the present study we used only the monitoring subscale [27, 41]. Reliability of the TMSI monitoring subscale, estimated by Cronbach’s alpha, was 0.79.

Statistical analyses

Descriptive statistics were used to describe the distributions of the socio-demographic and medical variables (i.e. the mean, standard deviation (SD) and proportions). Paired-sample t-tests were used to compare means of repeated measurements and changes in values for anxiety and depression symptom subscores were analyzed with McNemar’s exact test. To test for differences between the final study sample and those who dropped out from T1 to T2, we used an independent t-test for continuous variables, and for categorical variables we calculated the Fisher’s exact mid p-value [42].

To identify the characteristics related to HADS anxiety and HADS depression, the subscale scores were regressed on the selected predictor variables using a mixed linear model module. The mixed linear model uses all available data and can account for correlations between repeated measurements on the same subjects and has sufficient flexibility to model time effects [43]. All predictors were entered into the mixed linear models to assess both their main effects and their possible interactions with time. The regression analyses were run backwards stepwise, both with and without interaction with time.

Missing values were replaced according to the guidelines for each instrument or by the individual’s own average score for each questionnaire when more than 50% of the items were completed. Reliability was estimated by Cronbach’s alpha for all scales used in this study. A two-tailed significance level of 0.05 was used. All data were analyzed using SPSS version 22.

Results

The study sample and characteristics of predictor variables

Of the 130 eligible women, 100 (77%) consented to the study and returned their questionnaires at baseline, and 75 (58%) completed both questionnaires. We have no data on the 30 non-responses. Characteristics of sociodemographic and medical variables for the study sample are provided in Table 2. The mean age of the study sample was 45.8 years (range: 26–69 years) and the mean time since they received the BRCA test results was 5.3 years (range: 1 month–15 years). About 87% were cohabiting, 87% had children, and 89% reported their education level to be high school or above. Among the participants, 26% had a personal history of cancer. The majority of the samples had experienced cancer and death among their close relatives. The participants reported both high situation specific self-efficacy and high average score for monitoring coping style (Table 3).
Table 2

Sociodemographic and medical characteristics of women attending group-based patient education (GPE) course

Characteristic

 

Respondents (n = 100)

Drop-outsa (n = 25)

 

Category

n

%

n

%

p-value

Marital status

     

0.083b

 

Married/cohabiting

87

87.0

19

21.8

 

Living alone

13

13.0

6

3.3

 

Children

     

0.026b

 

Yes

87

87.0

20

21.8

 

No

13

13.0

5

3.3

 

Educational status

     

0.501c

 

Primary school

11

11.0

1

2.8

 

High school

39

39.0

11

9.8

 

University

50

50.0

13

12.5

 

Breast cancer or ovarian cancer

     

0.451b

 

Yes

26

26.0

5

6.5

 

No

74

74.0

20

18.5

 

FDR and/or SDR died due to BOC

     

0.643b

 

Yes

83

83.0

20

20.8

 

No

17

17.0

5

4.3

 

Loss of significant others

     

0.785b

 

Yes

64

64.0

15

16.0

 

No

36

36.0

10

9.0

 
 

mean (SD)

 

mean (SD)

 

p-valued

Age, years

47.7 (12.6)

 

39.9 (8.2)

 

0.005

Years since received BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation result

5.0 (4.4)

 

6.3 (3.9)

 

0.182

HADS anxiety (range: 0–21)

6.1 (4.3)

 

6.3 (3.8)

 

0.814

Abbreviations: FDR first degree relative, SDR second degree relative, BOC Breast or ovarian cancer, SD standard deviation, BRCA1 breast cancer type 1 susceptibility protein, BRCA2 breast cancer type 2 susceptibility protein, HADS Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale

a Drop-outs are defined as having answered on baseline questionnaires and not on the follow-up

b Fisher’s exact 2-sided mid-p value (calculated from output of chi-square test)

c Chi-square 2-sided linear-by-linear association test

d Independent samples t-test

Table 3

Study measurement and descriptive statistics in women attending group-based patient education (GPE) course

Measure

T1 = 2 weeks before GPE course

T2 = 2 weeks after GPE course

N

Mean

SD

%

N

Mean

SD

%

p-value

HADS-anxiety (range: 0–21)

100

6.2

4.1

 

74

5.2

3.9

 

0.003 a

HADS-A score ≥ 8

29

  

29.0

14

  

18.9

0.065 b

HADS-depression (range: 0–21)

100

2.8

3.3

 

74

2.6

3.2

 

0.211 a

HADS-D ≥ 8

10

  

10.0

6

  

8.1

1.000 b

TMSI-monitors (range: 12–60)

99

42.8

7.4

      

Situation specific self-efficacy (range: 1–11)

100

8.9

1.4

      

Abbreviations: SD standard deviation, HADS Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, TMSI Threatening Medical Situations Inventory

a Paired samples t-test

b McNemar’s exact test

On average, the respondents reported that they were satisfied with the GPE course. Each theme in the GPE course was scored on a five-point scale from 1 (“not important”) to 5 (“very important”). The average score for all themes was 3.84 (SD: 0.08). Of the 75 women who responded to the follow-up questionnaires, 41.3% reported that the intervention was “good”, and the rest (58.7%) reported it went “very well”. None of the participants indicated that they were dissatisfied with the GPE course. A majority of the women, 75.7%, reported that they had learned something new. However, 34.7% reported that they missed something and 33.3% were unsure if they missed important topics.

Drop-outs

Drop-outs were defined as having responded at T1 but not at T2. Drop-outs (25%) were significantly younger, with a mean age of 40.0 years compared to 47.7 years among the complete study sample (p = 0.005). There were also significantly more drop-outs who reported having “no children” (p = 0.026). Otherwise, the drop-outs did not differ on any of the other study variables (Table 2).

Outcome variable: anxiety (HADS-A) and depression (HADS-D)

Mean score, SDs, and numbers of individuals with symptom scores for anxiety and depression above the cut-off values are provided in Table 3. The mean HADS subscale score for anxiety was 6.2 (SD: 4.14) at T1, with a significant decrease to 5.2 (SD: 3.95) at T2 (p = 0.003). The mean HADS-D subscale score was 2.8 (SD: 3.33) and did not change significantly from T1 to T2. The number of participants with scores above the cut-off level of HADS-A dropped from T1 to T2 but the decrease was not statistically significant (p = 0.065). The proportion of individuals with a HADS-D score above the cut-off level did not change significantly from T1 to T2 (Table 3).

Mixed linear model analysis of anxiety and depression symptoms

The following predictors were used: age, having children, cohabiting status, educational status, having cancer, experiencing the death due to breast or ovarian cancer of a first-degree and/or second-degree relative, time since disclosure of the gene test results, monitoring coping style, and situation specific self-efficacy.

The results of the mixed linear model analyzed for HADS-A are provided in Table 4. The final model of the mixed linear model showed that the average level of anxiety symptoms varied with time and that the highest levels were at T1. Anxiety symptom levels decreased with greater time since disclosure of the gene test result, a higher level of situation specific self-efficacy, and if the women had experienced losing a first and/or second-degree relative due to breast or ovarian cancer.
Table 4

Mixed linear regression analyses of Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Anxiety in the study sample

Variables

Not adjusted

Fully adjusted (n = 97 a)

Final model b (n = 98a)

b

95% CI

p-value c

b

95% CI

p-valuec

b

95% CI

p-value c

Intercept (Anxiety)

   

16.89

(9.45, 24.32)

< 0.001

17.91

(13.04, 22.78)

< 0.001

Educational status (n = 100)

  

0.597

  

0.331

   

 University

−1.21

(−3.76, 1.34)

 

−1.23

(−3.73, 1.27)

    

 High school

−1.29

(−3.91, 1.32)

 

−1.50

(−3.99, 0.99)

    

 Primary school

0.00

(reference)

 

0.00

(reference)

    

Living with someone (n = 100)

−0.19

(−2.52, 2.14)

0.872

0.49

(−1.93, 2.90)

0.691

   

Children (n = 100)

0.30

(−2.02, 2.61)

0.801

1.31

(−1.13, 3.76)

0.289

   

BOC (n = 100)

1.22

(−0.52, 2.96)

0.167

0.12

(−1.83, 2.06)

0.906

   

FDR/SDR died due to BOC (n = 100)

−2.62

(−4.61, −0.62)

0.011

−2.06

(−4.12, −0.00)

0.050

−2.25

(−4.08, −0.43)

0.016

Age per 10 years (n = 100)

0.03

(−0.61, 0.67)

0.926

0.07

(−0.68, 0.82)

0.862

   

Disclosure gene test results/years (n = 98)

−0.23

(−0.40, −0.05)

0.012

−0.26

(−0.43, −0.09)

0.003

−0.25

(−0.41, −0.09)

0.002

Monitoring coping style per 10 (n = 99)

0.07

(−0.98, 1.12)

0.899

0.35

(−0.63, 1.32)

0.485

   

Situation specific self-efficacy (n = 100)

−1.02

(−1.55, −0.49)

< 0.001

−1.10

(−1.70, −0.51)

< 0.001

−0.96

(−1.48, −0.45)

< 0.001

Time

−0.91

(−1.47, −0.35)

0.002

−0.90

(−1.46, −0.33)

0.002

−0.92

(−1.48, −0.35)

0.002

Abbreviations: b estimated regression coefficient, CI confidence interval, FDR first degree relative, SDR second degree relative, BOC Breast or ovarian cancer

a Number of subjects having completed the included variables on at least one occasion during the data collection time

b Final model: After backward stepwise selection from fully adjusted model at significance level 0.05

c F-test

The final model of the mixed linear model analyzed for HADS-D is provided in Table 5. In contrast, the average level of depression symptoms did not change from T1 to T2. However, a lower depression score was related to a higher level of education and to having experienced death related to breast and/or ovarian cancer among a first and/or second-degree relative.
Table 5

Mixed linear regression analyses of Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Depression in the study sample

Variables

Not adjusted

Fully adjusted (n = 97 a)

Final model b (n = 100 a)

b

95% CI

p-value c

b

95% CI

p-value c

b

95% CI

p-value c

Intercept (Depression)

   

9.98

( 3.73, 16.22)

0.002

7.26

(5.03, 9.49)

< 0.001

Educational status (n = 100)

  

0.046

  

0.033

  

0.013

 University

−2.45

(−4.44, −0.47)

 

−2.31

(−4.42, −0.19)

 

−2.54

(−4.43, −0.65)

 

 High school

−2.36

(−4.40, −0.32)

 

−2.66

(−4.76, -0.56)

 

−2.92

(−4.89, −0.96)

 

 Primary school

0

(reference)

 

0

(reference)

 

0

(reference)

 

Living with someone (n = 100)

−0.24

(−2.10, 1.62)

0.797

0.16

(−1.86, 2.17)

0.877

   

Children (n = 100)

0.84

(−1.01, 2.68)

0.371

0.87

(−1.19,2.92)

0.404

   

BOC (n = 100)

1.69

(0.32, 3.05)

0.016

0.73

(−0.90, 2.37)

0.374

   

FDR/SDR dead due to BOC (n = 100)

−2.25

(−3.83, −0.67)

0.006

−1.85

(−3.58, −0.13)

0.036

−2.59

(−4.17, −1.01)

0.002

Age per 10 years (n = 100)

0.43

(−0.07, 0.93)

0.094

0.16

(−0.47, 0.79)

0.618

   

Disclosure gene test results/years (n = 98)

−0.11

(−0.25, 0.04)

0.140

−0.11

(−0.25, 0.04)

0.141

   

Monitoring coping style per 10 (n = 99)

−0.33

(−1.17, 0.51)

0.436

−0.11

(−0.93, 0.72)

0.798

   

Situation specific self-efficacy (n = 100)

−0.48

(−0.93, −0.04)

0.035

−0.47

(−0.97, 0.03)

0.064

   

Time

−0.32

(−0.88, 0.24)

0.264

−0.31

(−0.89, 0.28)

0.296

   

Abbreviations: b estimated regression coefficient, CI confidence interval, FDR first degree relative, SDR second degree relative, BOC Breast or ovarian cancer

a Number of subjects having completed the whole dataset on at least one occasion during the data collection time

b Final model: After backward stepwise selection from fully adjusted model at significance level 0.05

c F-test

Discussion

The mean level of anxiety symptoms among our participants was higher (6.2) compared with earlier studies among women undergoing genetic counseling for hereditary cancer (5.0) [18]. However, the level decreased significantly by post-GPE follow-up, while the mean level of depression symptoms was low and stable throughout the study period. One of the main findings from this study was that lower symptoms of anxiety were associated with longer time since disclosure of the gene test results, higher levels of self-efficacy and having experienced the death of a close relative due to breast or ovarian cancer. While a higher level of education and experienced the death of a close relative due to breast or ovarian cancer was associated with a lower level of depression.

All respondents were satisfied with the GPE course and a majority reported that their knowledge had increased. This might reflect the quality of the course and the group setting. Alternatively, these women were self-selected (after being invited) to attend the course and we must assume that individuals who are uncomfortable with group-based courses would not enroll in such an intervention. This possibility is further enhanced by the fact that our respondents seemed to be quite resourceful in the sense that they were highly educated, a majority cohabitated, they reported high levels of self-efficacy, and they scored high on monitoring coping style.

The mean levels of anxiety and depression symptoms were below the cut-off score (≥8) [39] both before and after attending the GPE course. However, it should be noted that the mean level of anxiety symptoms in our sample was quite high compared with the general population in Norway (4.3) [44], and significantly higher than reported in earlier studies of individuals seeking genetic counseling for hereditary cancer [18]. In the present study, the level of anxiety symptoms was comparable to newly diagnosed breast and ovarian cancer patients (6.8) [45]. Although the mean level of symptoms of anxiety decreased significantly from baseline to posttest, the mean level at posttest was still similar to other cancer groups [46]. Signing up for a GPE course might also increase the perceived anxiety level at the time, because the participants may reactivate thoughts and experiences not fully addressed previously.

The relatively high level of anxiety symptoms observed in our sample might be explained by the fact that all of our participants were mutation carriers. Earlier research has shown that the level of anxiety symptoms after genetic counseling for hereditary cancer is related to a high level of pre-test anxiety and being a mutation carrier [6, 47]. Others like Reichelt et al. [48] did not find the same association between being a mutation carrier and increased level of anxiety. However, they found higher HADS-A among women with cancer disease [48]. We did not find support for the latter in our regression model.

The mean time since disclosure of the gene test result was about 5 years, but this varied a great deal (from 1 month to 15 years). The GPE courses we evaluated in the present study were the first to be organized in this health region and many of the eligible participants had lived with the knowledge of their mutation status for a long time. Some might miss someone, like a peer, to talk to about the challenges associated with being a BRCA mutation carrier. This again could lead to increased anxiety symptoms. Earlier research has also shown that women with BRCA mutations feel alone with their concerns about being a mutation carrier and report that they want to discuss their challenges with peers and health professionals [16, 17]. The latter is indeed what they get in a GPE course and might explain the significant reduction in their anxiety symptom levels.

One should also note that our participants reported a relatively high level of monitoring coping style, which did not surprise us. After all, these respondents were highly self-selected and we would expect a monitoring personality trait to seek and prefer GPE courses such as ours. Previous studies have shown that individuals with high monitoring coping style who seek genetic counseling report higher anxiety before the visit, and that their level of anxiety decreases after the counseling session [27]. We might interpret that a person with a high monitoring coping style experiences a decrease in anxiety level when given the extensive information provided through a GPE course.

The mean depression symptoms score in our sample was low and stable across the observation period. This depression level is similar to a Norwegian population sample and in line with earlier research on genetic counseling [18, 44]. We cannot rule out that one possible explanation of the low depression scores in our study were caused by a selection bias: all the participants enrolled in the course after being invited by the medical genetics department. Common symptoms of depression such as lack of energy and initiative may reduce the probability of signing up for a GPE course, and this will subsequently favor participants with lower levels of depression.

The mixed linear model showed that time since disclosure of test results and higher levels of efficacy were associated with a lower level of anxiety symptoms. It has been well established that time since a potentially traumatic event is associated with improved psychosocial outcome. The women in this study had been enrolled in surveillance programs, some several years previously, and one may presume that they have adjusted to the knowledge of their increased cancer risk. The association between higher levels of self-efficacy and lower anxiety symptoms is consistent with earlier findings [18]. Self-efficacy as a psychological resource is associated with better outcomes in most demanding situations and this may partly explain the association we revealed. More specific medical information will give these individuals higher degrees of satisfaction and further reduce their level of anxiety symptoms [41, 49, 50].

More surprising, we found that having lost a first and/or second degree relative to cancer seems to be a “buffer” for both anxiety and depression symptoms. This is inconsistent with earlier findings [22, 23] and may be explained by the high levels of both self-efficacy and monitoring coping styles. Those who sign up for a course such as ours are more likely to have lived through the grieving process and actively processed it in an adaptive manner. It should be noted that women who experience having their mother diagnosed with breast cancer at a young age, for example, make decisions regarding genetic evaluation and follow-up earlier than women without such an experience [8]. Important life experiences like this may motivate patients to take health preventive actions. As expected, and in consistency with earlier findings, we also found an association between higher education levels and lower levels of depression symptoms [44].

In the present study, the drop-outs were significantly younger and fewer of them had children. We know from earlier studies that younger patients attending genetic counseling for hereditary cancer are often more anxious and vulnerable [51] and this may explain why these participants tend to drop-out. On the other hand, this might be because the youngest felt that the course themes were not relevant to them. A surveillance program, prophylactic surgery, and family issues such as whether their children have inherited their germline mutation may be irrelevant at their current life stage.

Conclusion

The present study revealed that participants in a GPE course were resourceful in the sense that they had high levels of education, were cohabiting, were highly self-efficacious, and had a high monitoring coping style. Furthermore, the respondents seem to benefit from attending the course which may indicate that the GPE course has the intended effect, and therefore could be a valuable supplement to traditional genetic counselling. Finally, we identified some participants who may be more vulnerable and therefore should receive greater attention; specifically, those who were newly diagnosed with a BRCA mutation, who had lower levels of self-efficacy, or who had lower levels of education. A consequence of these findings should include arranging regular GPE courses and offering them as part of the genetic follow-up. In our department, all women carrying a BRCA mutation are now offered a GPE course within 6–12 months after disclosure of the gene test results.

Abbreviations

BGCSES: 

Bergen Genetic Counseling Self-efficacy Scale

GPE: 

Group-based patient education

HADS: 

Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale

MRI: 

Magnetic resonance imaging

SD: 

Standard deviation

TMSI: 

Threatening Medical Situation Inventory

Declarations

Acknowledgments

We thank all the women who participated in the study. We are grateful for the data collection assistance provided by the Center of Medical Genetics and Molecular Medicine, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway, and the unit on Learning and Mastery in Health, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway. We are also grateful to Haukeland University Hospital for providing a short-term scholarship.

We confirm all patient/personal identifiers have been removed or disguised so the patient/person(s) described are not identifiable and cannot be identified through the details of the story

Funding

This study was supported financially by Western Norway Familial Cancer Center, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway and Centre of Clinical Research, Haukeland University hospital, Bergen, Norway.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Authors’ contributions

All authors contributed to the writing of this manuscript and approved the final version.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Consent for publication

Not applicable. The manuscript does not contain any individual person’s data in any form.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The Data Protection Official for Research at Haukeland University Hospital approved the study, and informed consents were conducted according to the national legislations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Western Norway Familial Cancer Center, Haukeland University Hospital
(2)
Center for Medical Genetics and Molecular Medicine, Haukeland University Hospital
(3)
Centre of Clinical Research, Haukeland University Hospital
(4)
Learning and Mastery Center in Bergen
(5)
Department of Clinical Science, University of Bergen
(6)
Department of Global Public Health and Primary Care, University of Bergen

References

  1. Mavaddat N, Peock S, Frost D, Ellis S, Platte R, Fineberg E, et al. Cancer risks for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: results from prospective analysis of EMBRACE. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2013;105:812–22.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Brohet RM, Velthuizen ME, Hogervorst FB, Meijers-Heijboer HE, Seynaeve C, Collee MJ, et al. Breast and ovarian cancer risks in a large series of clinically ascertained families with a high proportion of BRCA1 and BRCA2 Dutch founder mutations. J Med Genet. 2014;51:98–107.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Hartmann LC, Lindor NM. The Role of Risk-Reducing Surgery in Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer. N Engl J Med. 2016;374:454–68.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Norwegian breast cancer group, (NBCG). Norwegian guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow up of patients with breast cancer 2016. Available at: http://nbcg.no/retningslinjer/. Accessed 5 Jan 2017.
  5. Hartmann LC, Sellers TA, Schaid DJ, Frank TS, Soderberg CL, Sitta DL, et al. Efficacy of bilateral prophylactic mastectomy in BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutation carriers. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2001;93:1633–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Lodder L, Frets PG, Trijsburg RW, Meijers-Heijboer EJ, Klijn JG, Duivenvoorden HJ, et al. Psychological impact of receiving a BRCA1/BRCA2 test result. Am J Med Genet. 2001;98:15–24.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Rebbeck TR, Friebel T, Lynch HT, Neuhausen SL, van ’t Veer L, Garber JE, et al. Bilateral prophylactic mastectomy reduces breast cancer risk in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: the PROSE Study Group. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:1055–62.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Landsbergen KM, Prins JB, Kamm YJ, Brunner HG, Hoogerbrugge N. Female BRCA mutation carriers with a preference for prophylactic mastectomy are more likely to participate an educational-support group and to proceed with the preferred intervention within 2 years. Fam Cancer. 2010;9:213–20.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. van Dijk S, van Roosmalen MS, Otten W, Stalmeier PF. Decision making regarding prophylactic mastectomy: stability of preferences and the impact of anticipated feelings of regret. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:2358–63.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Klitzman R, Chung W. The process of deciding about prophylactic surgery for breast and ovarian cancer: Patient questions, uncertainties, and communication. Am J Med Genet A. 2010;152a:52–66.View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Fraser FC. Genetic counseling. Am J Hum Genet. 1974;26:636–59.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Van Asperen CJ, Van Dijk S, Zoeteweij MW, Timmermans DR, De Bock GH, Meijers-Heijboer EJ, et al. What do women really want to know? Motives for attending familial breast cancer clinics. J Med Genet. 2002;39:410–4.View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Armstrong J, Toscano M, Kotchko N, Friedman S, Schwartz MD, Virgo KS, et al. Utilization and Outcomes of BRCA Genetic Testing and Counseling in a National Commercially Insured Population: The ABOUT Study. JAMA Oncol. 2015;1:1251–60.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Visser A, Prins JB, Hoogerbrugge N, van Laarhoven HW. Group medical visits in the follow-up of women with a BRCA mutation: design of a randomized controlled trial. BMC Womens Health. 2011;11:39.View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Calzone KA, Prindiville SA, Jourkiv O, Jenkins J, DeCarvalho M, Wallerstedt DB, et al. Randomized comparison of group versus individual genetic education and counseling for familial breast and/or ovarian cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:3455–64.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Esplen MJ, Hunter J, Leszcz M, Warner E, Narod S, Metcalfe K, et al. A multicenter study of supportive-expressive group therapy for women with BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations. Cancer. 2004;101:2327–40.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Speice J, McDaniel SH, Rowley PT, Loader S. Family issues in a psychoeducation group for women with a BRCA mutation. Clin Genet. 2002;62:121–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Bjorvatn C, Eide GE, Hanestad BR, Havik OE. Anxiety and depression among subjects attending genetic counseling for hereditary cancer. Patient Educ Couns. 2008;71:234–43.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Stein MB, Hollander E. Texbook of Anxiety Disorders. Washington DC: The American Psychiatric Publishing; 2002.Google Scholar
  20. Watson D, Weber K, Assenheimer JS, Clark LA, Strauss ME, McCormick RA. Testing a tripartite model: I. Evaluating the convergent and discriminant validity of anxiety and depression symptom scales. J Abnorm Psychol. 1995;104:3–14.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Helsenorge.no. Angst og angstlidelser 2014. Available at: https://helsenorge.no/sykdom/psykiskelidelser/angst/angst-og-angstlidelser. Accessed 5 Jan 2017.
  22. Lodder LN, Frets PG, Trijsburg RW, Meijers-Heijboer EJ, Klijn JG, Duivenvoorden HJ, et al. Presymptomatic testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2: how distressing are the pre-test weeks? Rotterdam/Leiden Genetics Working Group. J Med Genet. 1999;36:906–13.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. van Oostrom I, Meijers-Heijboer H, Lodder LN, Duivenvoorden HJ, van Gool AR, Seynaeve C, et al. Long-term psychological impact of carrying a BRCA1/2 mutation and prophylactic surgery: a 5-year follow-up study. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21:3867–74.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Pieterse AH, Ausems MG, Van Dulmen AM, Beemer FA, Bensing JM. Initial cancer genetic counseling consultation: change in counselees’ cognitions and anxiety, and association with addressing their needs and preferences. Am J Med Genet A. 2005;137:27–35.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Bjorvatn C, Eide GE, Hanestad BR, Oyen N, Havik OE, Carlsson A, et al. Risk perception, worry and satisfaction related to genetic counseling for hereditary cancer. J Genet Couns. 2007;16:211–22.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Pieterse AH, van Dulmen AM, Beemer FA, Bensing JM, Ausems MG. Cancer genetic counseling: communication and counselees’ post-visit satisfaction, cognitions, anxiety, and needs fulfillment. J Genet Couns. 2007;16:85–96.View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Nordin K, Liden A, Hansson M, Rosenquist R, Berglund G. Coping style, psychological distress, risk perception, and satisfaction in subjects attending genetic counselling for hereditary cancer. J Med Genet. 2002;39:689–94.View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Tercyak KP, Lerman C, Peshkin BN, Hughes C, Main D, Isaacs C, et al. Effects of coping style and BRCA1 and BRCA2 test results on anxiety among women participating in genetic counseling and testing for breast and ovarian cancer risk. Health Psychol. 2001;20:217–22.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Hayat Roshanai A, Rosenquist R, Lampic C, Nordin K. Does enhanced information at cancer genetic counseling improve counselees’ satisfaction and negotiation of informmation to at-risk relatives?–a randomized study. Acta Oncol. 2009;48:999–1009.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  30. Norwegian legislation. Act-1999-07-02-63, relating to patients’ rights. 1999. Available at:https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/1999-07-02-63?q=pasientrettighetsloven. Accessed 5 Jan 2017.
  31. Norwegian legislation. Act-1999-07-02-61. 1999. Available at: https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/1999-07-02-61?q=1999-07-02-61.. Accessed 5 Jan 2017.
  32. Austvoll-Dahlgren A, Nøstberg AM, Steinsbekk A, Vist GE. Report by The Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services; The effects of group education on patients and their next of kin. 2011. Available at: http://www.kunnskapssenteret.no/publikasjoner/effekt-av-gruppeundervisning-i-pasient-og-parorendeopplaering. Accessed 5 Jan 2017.
  33. NKLMH. About the Norwegian National Advisory Unit on Learning and Mastery in Health 2011. Available at:https://mestring.no/in-english/. Accessed 5 Jan 2017.
  34. Classen C, Butler LD, Koopman C, Miller E, DiMiceli S, Giese-Davis J, et al. Supportive-expressive group therapy and distress in patients with metastatic breast cancer: a randomized clinical intervention trial. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2001;58:494–501.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Goodwin PJ, Leszcz M, Ennis M, Koopmans J, Vincent L, Guther H, et al. The effect of group psychosocial support on survival in metastatic breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2001;345:1719–26.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Petersson LM, Berglund G, Brodin O, Glimelius B, Sjoden PO. Group rehabilitation for cancer patients: satisfaction and perceived benefits. Patient Educ Couns. 2000;40:219–29.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Landsbergen KM, Brunner HG, Manders P, Hoogerbrugge N, Prins JB. Educational-support groups for BRCA mutation carriers satisfy need for information but do not affect emotional distress. Genet Couns. 2010;21:423–37.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Zigmond AS, Snaith RP. The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1983;67:361–70.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Bjelland I, Dahl AA, Haug TT, Neckelmann D. The validity of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. An updated literature review. J Psychosom Res. 2002;52:69–77.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. van Zuuren FJ, de Groot KI, Mulder NL, Peter M. Coping with medical threat: An evaluation of the Threatening Medical Situations Inventory (TMSI). Personal Individ Differ. 1996;21:21–31.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  41. Ong LM, Visser MR, van Zuuren FJ, Rietbroek RC, Lammes FB, de Haes JC. Cancer patients’ coping styles and doctor-patient communication. Psychooncology. 1999;8:155–66.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Davis C. Statistical Methods for the Analysis of Repeated Measurements. New York: Springer; 2002.Google Scholar
  43. Gueorguieva R, Krystal JH. Move over ANOVA: progress in analyzing repeated-measures data and its reflection in papers published in the Archives of General Psychiatry. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2004;61:310–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Bjelland I. Anxiety and depression in the General Population Issus related to assessment, comorbidity, and risk factors. Bergen: University of Bergen; 2004.Google Scholar
  45. Hoberg-Vetti H, Bjorvatn C, Fiane BE, Aas T, Woie K, Espelid H, et al. BRCA1/2 testing in newly diagnosed breast and ovarian cancer patients without prior genetic counselling: the DNA-BONus study. Eur J Hum Genet. 2016;24(6):881-8. doi: 10.1038/ejhg.2015.196. Epub 2015 Sep 9.
  46. Nordin K, Roshanai A, Bjorvatn C, Wollf K, Mikkelsen EM, Bjelland I, et al. Is genetic counseling a stressful event? Acta Oncol. 2011;50:1089–97.View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Butow PN, Lobb EA, Meiser B, Barratt A, Tucker KM. Psychological outcomes and risk perception after genetic testing and counselling in breast cancer: a systematic review. Med J Aust. 2003;178:77–81.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Reichelt JG, Heimdal K, Moller P, Dahl AA. BRCA1 testing with definitive results: a prospective study of psychological distress in a large clinic-based sample. Fam Cancer. 2004;3:21–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Rood JA, Van Zuuren FJ, Stam F, van der Ploeg T, Huijgens PC, Verdonck-de Leeuw IM. Cognitive coping style (monitoring and blunting) and the need for information, information satisfaction and shared decision making among patients with haematological malignancies. Psychooncology. 2015;24:564–71.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Wakefield CE, Homewood J, Mahmut M, Taylor A, Meiser B. Usefulness of the Threatening Medical Situations Inventory in individuals considering genetic testing for cancer risk. Patient Educ Couns. 2007;69:29–38.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Bjorvatn C, Eide GE, Hanestad BR, Hamang A, Havik OE. Intrusion and avoidance in subjects undergoing genetic investigation and counseling for hereditary cancer. Support Care Cancer. 2009;17:1371–81.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2017

Advertisement