PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Kathleen A Calzone

Publications and source records attributed to Kathleen A Calzone.

11 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2026

Health Service Delivery Outcomes From Nursing in Genomics: A Scoping Review of the Literature (2012-2025).

AIM: This study aimed to summarize the current state of the science for "health service delivery-oriented outcomes" from nursing in genomics (2012-2025). BACKGROUND: Nurses can play a vital role in increasing access to genomic healthcare and improving outcomes for patients, families, and communities. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review of the literature in four databases (2012-2025). Articles were categorized using the Cochrane Collaboration outcome domains and sub-domains to identify salient topics and synthesize findings. RESULTS: Of 11,646 retrieved articles, 66 publications reporting "health service delivery-oriented outcomes" were included for analysis. Identified articles spanned three sub-domains: "service delivery level," "related to research," and "societal or governmental." Within sub-domains, articles were further categorized into dimensions, the most prominent being "service utilization" under the "service delivery level" sub-domain. Studies were primarily from anglophone countries and near-evenly split into interventional and noninterventional studies. Studies reported that nurses working in multidisciplinary and/or interprofessional teams are a cost-effective means to increase access to genomic healthcare and reduce burden on genetic specialists. Nurses are incorporating genomics in various settings, including oncology, pharmacogenomics, genetic counseling, rare genetic diseases, and symptom science. CONCLUSION: Despite evidence of nurses contributing to health system delivery-oriented outcomes, evidence suggests that nurses are underutilized and underprepared in genomic healthcare. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING: A significant barrier to integrating genomics into nursing practice is a lack of foundational knowledge and genomic competency across nursing education, clinical practice, and nursing policymakers. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING POLICY: Nursing leadership spanning education, research, practice, and policy domains will be critical for integrating genomics in nursing practice and improving health system delivery-oriented outcomes.

Humans↗
PubMed2006

Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma as an exemplar of the effects of genetics and genomics.

PURPOSE: To discuss the interface of genetics and genomics science in the identification and management of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. The field of oncology is an exemplar of how the genomic revolution is influencing more individualized care and treatment of people with cancer and their families. DESIGN: Integrated review of the cancer genetics and genomics literature. METHODS: Published peer-reviewed research, conference proceedings, and peer-reviewed internet sites regarding the genetics and genomics of cancer and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma were reviewed, analyzed, and data synthesized. FINDINGS: All malignancies have a genetic and genomic basis. Genetic and genomic break-throughs are rapidly being applied to all aspects of cancer care including: (a) identification of at-risk individuals before disease occurs, (b) diagnosis and characterization of disease and its aggressiveness when it appears via gene expression, (c) and individualization of therapies over the disease course based on these new molecular technologies. CONCLUSIONS: Oncology nurses in every role, clinical subspecialty, and type of education are among the first nurses to integrate genetic and genomic information in such a broad context. This experience shows how genetic and genomic discoveries will interface with other health conditions and ultimately, will affect the practice of all nurses.

Biomarkers, Tumor↗
PubMed2005

Randomized comparison of group versus individual genetic education and counseling for familial breast and/or ovarian cancer.

PURPOSE: An efficient approach to education and counseling before BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation testing is necessary for effective utilization of testing in the community. Education and counseling, when delivered individually, are limited by a shortage of trained health care providers as well as by financial and time constraints. The purpose of this study was to determine whether pretest education and counseling for breast cancer genetics in a group setting is equivalent to that provided on an individual basis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: One hundred forty-two patients at high risk for harboring a BRCA mutation were randomly assigned to group or individual education and counseling sessions. Group education was followed by brief individual counseling. Knowledge and Impact of Events Scales (IES) were administered at baseline and after education and counseling and at 1 week and 3, 6, and 12 months. Satisfaction with education and counseling was measured at completion of the session. Preferred method of education and counseling was solicited at 3 months. RESULTS: There was no difference in knowledge or IES scores between groups. When stratified by genetic test results, knowledge scores showed no difference. Regardless of group, post-test IES scores in patients with positive results were higher than patients with negative or uninformative results but returned to baseline by 12 months. Participants were equally satisfied with either method they were assigned. Significantly more time was spent per patient in individual sessions (1.25 hours) than in group education (0.74 hours). CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that group education and counseling may confer similar benefits compared with traditional individual sessions. Additional investigation of this approach in larger numbers of patients is warranted.

Adult↗
PubMed2004

Genetics and oncology nursing.

OBJECTIVES: To review oncology nursing practice in the genetic era, how genetic information is used across the cancer care continuum, practice guidelines, and opportunities for genetic nursing education. DATA SOURCES: Published articles. CONCLUSION: Genetic information in oncology health care is used not only to predict risk but to elucidate disease biology, explain individual variation in vulnerability to environmental carcinogens, diagnose and characterize malignancies, design treatment regimens specific to a cancer's genetic fingerprint, develop new, therapeutic modalities, and clarify modulators of drug metabolism, efficacy, and interactions. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE: With current and emerging genetic discoveries, all oncology nurses will use genetic information in their practice.

Clinical Competence↗
PubMed2004

Accuracy of cancer family histories: comparison of two breast cancer syndromes.

Cancer risk programs rely on accurately reported family history information. This study compares the accuracy with which cancer sites and ages at diagnosis are reported by Li-Fraumeni syndrome (LFS) and hereditary breast-ovarian cancer syndrome (HBOCS) families undergoing genetic testing. We analyzed the accuracy of 191 cancer diagnoses among first-degree (FDRs) and second-degree (SDRs) relatives reported by 32 LFS and 52 HBOCS participants in genetic testing programs. Cancer diagnoses of relatives were more accurately reported in the HBOCS cohort (78%) than in the LFS cohort (52%). Almost all breast cancer diagnoses were accurately reported, whereas 74% of ovarian cancer diagnoses and only 55% of other LFS-related cancers were accurately reported. Age at diagnosis was accurate within 5 years for 60% of LFS relatives and 53% of HBOCS relatives. Factors correlating with accurate reporting of cancer history included: being member of BRCA1 family, higher education level, female historian, degree of closeness to affected relative, and having fewer than 5 affected FDRs and SDRs. Relying on verbal histories would not have altered eligibility for genetic testing among HBOCS historians, but fewer than half of LFS historians provided information that would have led to TP53 testing. Our data suggest that it may not be necessary to confirm breast cancer diagnoses routinely; however, documentation of other cancer types remains important for appropriate risk assessment and follow-up.

Age Factors↗
PubMed2004

Assessing breast cancer risk: genetic factors are not the whole story.

Genetic syndromes that convey a significant risk of breast cancer are responsible for a small but significant percentage of these cancers. However, the vast majority of breast cancers occur in women with no family history of the disease. Nongenetic risk factors include age, previous breast disease, breast tissue density, radiation exposure, and lifestyle factors, such as weight, exercise, and alcohol consumption. In this article, the authors outline genetic and other risk factors for breast cancer, explore risk-reduction strategies, and encourage primary care physicians to assess breast cancer risk in all their patients.

Adult↗
PubMed2003

What do ratings of cancer-specific distress mean among women at high risk of breast and ovarian cancer?

Women recruited from a hereditary cancer registry provided ratings of distress associated with different aspects of high-risk status and genetic testing and completed measures of general psychological distress, emotional and social health, and role functioning. Overall, high-risk status was rated as more distressing than undergoing genetic testing. Women without a personal history of cancer rated the level of distress associated with a positive test result to be greater than that associated with high-risk status. In contrast, level of distress associated with a positive test result was not significantly different from that associated with high-risk status for women with a personal history of cancer. Furthermore, women with a personal cancer history also anticipated that if they had an altered gene associated with increased risk of cancer, it would be less distressing than their diagnosis of cancer had been. Women with the highest ratings of cancer-related stress were less inclined to obtain testing, but were not more generally distressed or maladjusted. The need to interpret psychological distress and the stressfulness of genetic testing among high-risk women with respect to relevant comparison data is discussed.

Adult↗
PubMed2002

Cancer risk estimates for BRCA1 mutation carriers identified in a risk evaluation program.

BACKGROUND: Increasing numbers of BRCA1 mutation carriers are being identified in cancer risk evaluation programs. However, no estimates of cancer risk specific to a clinic-based population of mutation carriers are available. These data are clinically relevant, because estimates based on families ascertained for linkage studies may overestimate cancer risk in mutation carriers, and population-based series may underestimate it. Wide variation in risk estimates from these disparate ascertainment groups makes counseling in risk evaluation programs difficult. The purpose of this study was to estimate BRCA1-related cancer risks for individuals ascertained in a breast cancer risk evaluation clinic. METHODS: Cumulative observed and age-adjusted cancer risk estimates were determined by analyzing 483 BRCA1 mutation carriers in 147 families identified in two academic breast and ovarian cancer risk evaluation clinics. Cancer risks were computed from the proportion of individuals diagnosed with cancer during a 10-year age interval from among the total number of individuals alive and cancer-free at the beginning of that interval. Age-of-diagnosis comparisons were made using two-sided Student's t tests. RESULTS: By age 70, female breast cancer risk was 72.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 67.9% to 77.7%) and ovarian cancer risk was 40.7% (95% CI = 35.7% to 45.6%). The risk for a second primary breast cancer by age 70 was 40.5% (95% CI = 34.1% to 47.0%). We also identified an increased risk of cancer of the colon (twofold), pancreas (threefold), stomach (fourfold), and fallopian tube (120-fold) in BRCA1 mutation carriers as compared with Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program population-based estimates. CONCLUSION: The estimates for breast and ovarian cancer risk in BRCA1 mutation carriers is higher than population-based estimates but lower than estimates based on families ascertained for linkage studies. These cancer risk estimates may most closely approximate those faced by BRCA1 mutation carriers identified in risk evaluation clinics.

Adult↗
PubMed2002

Genetic testing for cancer predisposition.

The onslaught of genetic innovations in the past decade has resulted in the ongoing identification of a spectrum of genes, some of which, when mutated, result in cancer susceptibility. The impact of these discoveries on healthcare provides an opportunity to enhance health promotion and long-term health outcomes by identifying at-risk individuals before cancer develops. This provides the healthcare provider with the potential to intervene much earlier to either reduce the risk or diagnose a cancer early when the chances for effective treatment are greatest. Even though genetic testing is increasingly being employed clinically, there remains a gap between the technology and effective interventions. Genetic tests also provide information that is distinct from other tests used routinely in health promotion, because of the personal and family nature of the information. This results in unique clinical, ethical, legal, and social issues that further affect the effective diffusion of this technology clinically. This article provides an overview of the distinguishing characteristics of genetic testing, outlines the essential components of informed consent, and discusses the potential implications of testing on individuals' lives and the nurse's role in offering genetic testing.

Genetic Predisposition to Disease↗
PubMed2002

Core competencies in cancer genetics for advanced practice oncology nurses.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: To determine core competencies in cancer genetics for advanced practice nurses (APNs) in oncology. DESIGN: Survey. SAMPLE: Expert panel of 9 nursing educators or researchers, 9 general genetics experts, 9 genetics experts with specialties in oncology, and 10 oncology APN nurse consumers (N = 37). METHODS: Utilizing the Delphi Technique, two rounds of surveys were conducted. Round 1's survey required open-ended responses to identify skills, attitudes, and competencies specific to cancer genetics. Round 2 requested ranking of the importance of identified competencies. MAIN RESEARCH VARIABLES: Skills, attitudes, and competencies specific to cancer genetics. FINDINGS: Recommended genetics competencies and knowledge for oncology APNs were identified for the categories of direct caregiver (6 items), coordinator (6 items), consultant (7 items), educator (6 items), researcher (8 items), and professional attitudes (16 items). CONCLUSIONS: Identified competencies provide a foundation and direction for development of the education curriculum recommended for all practicing oncology APNs. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING: Integrating genetic concepts into clinical practice is essential. Oncology APNs must have an expanded knowledge base in genetics to enable them to incorporate advances in genetics into practice to ensure quality outcomes. Development of genetics education is crucial to ensure future competency. Research that determines the impact of such education is warranted

Adult↗