The Genetic Psychosocial Risk Instrument (GPRI): A Validation Study for European Portuguese

Authors

  • Pedro Gomes Cancer Genetics Group. Research Centre of IPO Porto (CI-IPOP)/RISE@CI-IPOP (Health Research Network). Portuguese Oncology Institute of Porto. Porto Comprehensive Cancer Centre. Porto. Centre for Psychology. Faculty of Psychology and Education Sciences. University of Porto. Porto. https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9477-4434
  • Tiago Ferreira Centre for Psychology. Faculty of Psychology and Education Sciences. University of Porto. Porto. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2884-2547
  • Paula Mena Matos Centre for Psychology. Faculty of Psychology and Education Sciences. University of Porto. Porto. https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5763-8070
  • Eunice Silva Cancer Genetics Group. Research Centre of IPO Porto (CI-IPOP)/RISE@CI-IPOP (Health Research Network). Portuguese Oncology Institute of Porto. Porto Comprehensive Cancer Centre. Porto. Psychology Department. Portuguese Oncology Institute of Porto. Porto. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3403-6058
  • João Silva Medical Genetics Department. Portuguese Oncology Institute of Porto. Porto. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6041-1763
  • Mary Jane Esplen Department of Psychiatry. Faculty of Medicine. University of Toronto. Toronto.
  • Célia M. D. Sales Centre for Psychology. Faculty of Psychology and Education Sciences. University of Porto. Porto. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2586-8469

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.20344/amp.16497

Keywords:

Genetic Counseling, Genetic Testing, Neoplastic Syndromes, Hereditary, Psycho-Oncology, Psychometrics, Translation, Validation Study

Abstract

Introduction: Screening instruments specifically developed to identify genetic testing applicants who may need professional psychosocial support are much needed. However, there are no screening instruments validated for the Portuguese language. This paper presents the translation, adaptation, and validation process of the Genetic Psychosocial Risk Instrument in a sample of 207 Portuguese applicants to genetic testing in the context of inherited cancer risk.
Material and Methods: Participants were mainly female (84.06%), with a mean age of 40.08 (SD = 12.89) and were recruited from the Portuguese Oncology Institute of Porto. Confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to confirm the Genetic Psychosocial Risk Instrument factorial structure. Convergent validity was assessed with the Impact of Events Scale, the Clinical Outcome Routine Evaluation – Outcome Measure, and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale.
Results: A model composed by the factors ‘Internal Impact of Genetic Testing’, ‘External Impact of Genetic Testing’ and ‘History of Mental Health Concerns’ was confirmed. These factors showed good internal consistency, convergent and discriminant validity. The factor ‘Personal Loss to Cancer’ proposed in the Canadian and French versions did not converge. We propose excluding this factor from the European Portuguese version of the scale.
Conclusion: The European Portuguese version of the Genetic Psychosocial Risk Instrument is a reliable and valid instrument, although more research is needed to effectively use it in routine clinical oncogenetic departments.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Kuchenbaecker KB, Hopper JL, Barnes DR, Phillips KA, Mooij TM, Roos-Blom MJ, et al. Risks of breast, ovarian, and contralateral breast cancer for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. JAMA. 2017;317:2402–16.

Hampel H, Stephens JA, Pukkala E, Sankile R, Aaltonen LA, Mecklin JP, et al. Cancer risk in hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer syndrome: later age of onset. Gastroenterology. 2005;129:415–21.

Voorwinden JS, Jaspers JP. Prognostic factors for distress after genetic testing for hereditary cancer. J Genet Couns. 2016;25:495–503.

Heshka JT, Palleschi C, Howley H, Wilson B, Wells PS. A systematic review of perceived risks, psychological and behavioral impacts of genetic testing. Genet Med. 2008;10:19–32.

Heiniger L, Butow PN, Price MA, Charles M. Distress in unaffected individuals who decline, delay or remain ineligible for genetic testing for hereditary diseases : a systematic review. Psychooncology. 2013;22:1930–45.

Hamilton JG, Lobel M, Moyer A. Emotional distress following genetic testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer: a meta-analytic review. Health Psychol. 2009;28:510–8.

Lombardi L, Bramanti SM, Babore A, Stuppia L, Trumello C, Antonucci I, et al. Psychological aspects, risk and protective factors related to BRCA genetic testing: a review of the literature. Support Care Cancer. 2019;27:3647-56.

Gomes P, Pietrabissa G, Silva ER, Silva J, Matos PM, Costa ME, et al. Family adjustment to hereditary cancer syndromes: a systematic review. Int. J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19:1603.

Horowitz M, Wilner N, Alvarez W. Impact of event scale: a measure of subjective stress. Psychosom Med. 1979;41:209–18.

Cella D, Hughes C, Peterman A, Chang CH, Peshkin BN, Schwartz MD, et al. A brief assessment of concerns associated with genetic testing for cancer: the multidimensional impact of cancer risk assessment (MICRA) questionnaire. Health Psychol. 2002;21:564-72.

Esplen MJ, Cappelli M, Wong J, Botorff JL, Hunter J, Carroll J, et al. Development and validation of a brief screening instrument for psychosocial risk associated with genetic testing: a pan-canadian cohort study. BMJ Open. 2013;3:e002227.

Eberhard DM, Simons GF, Fennig C. Ethnologue: languages of the world. In: Ethnologue: languages of the world. 23rd ed. Dallas: SIL International; 2020.

Ritvo P, Irvine J, Robinson G, Brown L, Murphy KJ, Matthew A, et al. Psychological adjustment to familial-genetic risk assessment for ovarian cancer: predictors of nonadherence to surveillance recommendations. Gynecol Oncol. 2014;84:72-80.

Zigmond AS, Snaith RP. The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1983;67:361-70.

Pais-Ribeiro J, Silva I, Ferreira T, Martins A, Meneses R, Baltar M. Validation study of a Portuguese version of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Psychol Health Med. 2007;12:225-7.

Evans C, Mellor-Clark J, Margison F, Barkham M, Audin K, Connell J, et al. CORE: clinical outcomes in routine evaluation. J Ment Health. 2000;9:247-55.

Sales CM, Moleiro CM, Evans C, Alves PC. Versão portuguesa do CORE-OM: tradução, adaptação e estudo preliminar das suas propriedades psicométricas. Rev Psiquiatr Clin. 2012;39:54-9

Hamilton M. The assessment of anxiety states by rating. Br J Med Psychol. 1959;32:50-5.

Hamilton M. A rating scale for depression. J Neurol, Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1960;23:56-61.

Derogatis LR, Melisaratos N. The brief symptom inventory: an introductory report. Psychol Med. 1983;13:595-605.

Maheu C, Esplen MJ, Gao X, Dzneladze I, Bai H, Eisinger F, et al. Empirical validation of the genetic psychosocial risk instrument – French version ( GPRI-F ). Sci Nurs Health Pract. 2018;1:1–16.

Rhemtulla M, Brosseau-Liard PÉ, Savalei V. When can categorical variables be treated as continuous? a comparison of robust continuous and categorical SEM estimation methods under suboptimal conditions. Psychol Methods. 2012;17:354-73.

Asparouhov T, Muthén B. Statmodel. Los Angeles. Weighted least squares estimation with missing data. 2010. [cited 2020 Jul 03] Available from: https://www.statmodel.com/download/GstrucMissingRevision.pdf.

Hu L, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Modeling. 1999;6:1-55.

McQueen A, Vernon SW, Meissner HI, Rakowski W. Risk perceptions and worry about cancer: does gender make a difference? J Health Commun. 2008;13:56-79.

McLean CP, Asnaani A, Litz BT, Hofmann SG. Gender differences in anxiety disorders: prevalence, course of illness, comorbidity and burden of illness. J Psychiatr Res. 2011;45:1027-35.

Nolen-Hoeksema S. Gender differences in depression. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2001;10:173-6.

Linden W, Vodermaier A, MacKenzie R, Greig D. Anxiety and depression after cancer diagnosis: prevalence rates by cancer type, gender, and age. J Affect Disord. 2012;141:343-51.

Norris J, Spelic SS, Snyder C, Tinley S. Five families living with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer risk. Clin J Oncol Nurs. 2009;13:73-80.

Murakami Y, Okamura H, Sugano K, Yoshida T, Kazuma K, Akechi T, et al. Psychologic distress after disclosure of genetic test results regarding hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal carcinoma: a preliminary report. Cancer. 2004;101:395–403.

Published

2022-07-06

How to Cite

1.
Gomes P, Ferreira T, Mena Matos P, Silva E, Silva J, Esplen MJ, M. D. Sales C. The Genetic Psychosocial Risk Instrument (GPRI): A Validation Study for European Portuguese. Acta Med Port [Internet]. 2022 Jul. 6 [cited 2024 May 28];36(3):153-61. Available from: https://www.actamedicaportuguesa.com/revista/index.php/amp/article/view/16497

Issue

Section

Original