title: Identifying outcomes of clinical genetic services: qualitative evidence and methodological considerations.
abstract: Extensive research into the tangible and intangible implications of Clinical Genetic Services (CGSs) has confirmed the relevance of a multidimensional outcome of benefit conceptually linked to perceived control. This paper aims to report qualitative findings from one small study aiming to add to the evidence pool confirming the relevance of such an outcome to participants from one UK clinical genetics center. Data were collected using focus groups and individual interviews with 22 service users from the following conditions: Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer (HBOC), von Hippel Lindau disorder (VHL), Duchenne and Becker muscular dystrophy (DBMD), cystic fibrosis (CF) and tuberous sclerosis (TS). Transcripts were analyzed using thematic analysis and four dimensions of benefit were identified relating to cognitive, behavioral, social and emotional consequences. These dimensions related to an overarching conceptual outcome described as Perceived Familial Control. Findings are discussed to illustrate the inter-generational and intra-generational familial dimensions of CGSs and reinforce the significance of a familial focus to any genetics-specific outcome measure. The prospect and methodological considerations of a familial composite outcome measure for measuring overall benefit of CGSs is discussed based on current and past findings.
authors.affiliation: Healthcare Management Program, Open University of Cyprus, P.O. Box 12794, 2252, Latsia, Cyprus, christalla.pithara@ouc.ac.cy.
authors.forename: Christalla
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Pithara
mesh_terms: D030342:Genetic Diseases, Inborn / Q000235:genetics*; D006801:Humans; D036301:Qualitative Research; D006113:United Kingdom
references.citation: Clin Genet. 2011 May;79(5):413-24
references.pmid: 21255005
references.citation: Eur J Hum Genet. 2011 Feb;19(2):125-30
references.pmid: 20924407
references.citation: Value Health. 2008 May-Jun;11(3):497-508
references.pmid: 18489673
references.citation: Heart Fail Rev. 2014 Mar;19(2):153-62
references.pmid: 23238990
references.citation: Eur J Hum Genet. 2003 Dec;11 Suppl 2:S13-48
references.pmid: 14718937
references.citation: Genet Med. 2007 Nov;9(11):766-77
references.pmid: 18007146
references.citation: Fam Cancer. 2004;3(1):61-7
references.pmid: 15131408
references.citation: BMJ. 2010 Aug 18;341:c3920
references.pmid: 20719825
references.citation: J Clin Epidemiol. 2007 Jul;60(7):651-7; discussion 658-62
references.pmid: 17573977
references.citation: J Med Genet. 1998 Apr;35(4):309-13
references.pmid: 9598726
references.citation: J Genet Couns. 2009 Jun;18(3):217-28
references.pmid: 19291376
references.citation: Soc Sci Med. 2004 Apr;58(7):1427-42
references.pmid: 14759687
references.citation: Am J Med Genet. 2001 Fall;106(3):191-8
references.pmid: 11778979
references.citation: J Med Genet. 2000 Mar;37(3):197-202
references.pmid: 10699056
references.citation: Age Ageing. 2011 Nov;40(6):718-24
references.pmid: 22016344
references.citation: J Genet Couns. 2005 Jun;14(3):197-206
references.pmid: 15959651
references.citation: Health Policy. 2007 Nov;84(1):112-22
references.pmid: 17485130
references.citation: J Health Psychol. 2008 Oct;13(7):895-905
references.pmid: 18809640
references.citation: Eur J Hum Genet. 2008 Dec;16(12):1467-76
references.pmid: 18596695
references.citation: Am J Med Genet A. 2012 Feb;158A(2):367-72
references.pmid: 22162359