Monogenic diabetes: information seeking and genetic testing access via e-mail
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1002/edn.157Keywords:
Monogenic diabetes, genetic testing, information seeking, e-mail enquiryAbstract
AbstractBackground: Confirmation of monogenic diabetes by molecular genetic testing has allowed many patients, often previously assumed to have type 1 diabetes, to transfer from insulin injections to sulphonylurea tablets, with improvements in glycaemic control and quality of life: www.diabetesgenes.org provides information about monogenic diabetes and genetic testing.
Aim: To investigate key issues raised by individuals who e-mailed the monogenic diabetes team about genetic testing and monogenic diabetes management.
Methods: Sixty e-mail enquiries, received over a six-month period from patients and professionals worldwide, were analysed using a qualitative thematic content approach.
Results: Five themes emerged: 1. Accessing genetic technology: patients and professionals both enquired about access to testing; 2. Presentation of evidence: medical facts presented by patients and professionals included characteristics specifically relevant to diagnosing monogenic diabetes; 3. Experiences of healthcare: patients often researched their condition online and some felt dissatisfied with routine consultations; 4. Seeking specialist advice regarding treatment: specific information was sought relating to management of neonatal diabetes or monogenic diabetes and pregnancy; 5. Searching for a cure through genetic technology: patients questioned whether genetic advances would lead to a cure for diabetes.
Conclusion: This project offers the first insights into use of e-mail as a means of gaining access to a specialist monogenic team and information about genetic testing. Although providing advice via e-mail can prove complicated, particularly when received from patients under the care of other clinicians, it is an efficient means of communicating specialist knowledge. Study findings will aid development of a ‘frequently asked questions’ section of www.diabetesgenes.org.
Downloads
References
Staros EB. Molecular discoveries alter our view of inflammatory bowel disease. Am J Clin Pathol 2003;119:524–39.
Lehto M, et al. Characterisation of the MODY3 phenotype. Early onset diabetes caused by an insulin secretion defect. J Clin Invest 1997;99:582–91.
Moller AM, et al. Mutations in the hepatocyte nuclear factor-1-alpha gene in Caucasian families originally classified as having type 1 diabetes. Diabetologia 1998; 41:1528–31.
Hathout EH, et al. A case of hepatocyte nuclear factor-1 alpha diabetes/MODY3 masquerading as type 1 diabetes in a Mexican-American adolescent and responsive to a low dose of sulfonylurea. Diabetes Care 1999;22:867–8.
Lambert AP, et al. Identifying hepatic nuclear factor 1 alpha mutations in children and young adults with a clinical diagnosis of type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2003; 26:333–7.
Shepherd M, et al. No deterioration in glycaemic control in HNF-1 maturity-onset diabetes of the young following transfer from long-term insulin to sulphonylureas. Diabetes Care 2003;26:3191–2.
Pearson ER, et al. Genetic cause of hyperglycaemia and response to treatment in diabetes.Lancet 2003;362:1275–81.
Pearson ER, et al. Sensitivity to sulphonylureas in patients with hepatocyte nuclear factor-1 alpha gene mutations: evidence for pharmacogenetics in diabetes. Diabetic Med 2000;17:543–5.
Hattersley AT, Ashcroft FM. Activating mutations in Kir6.2 and neonatal diabetes: new clinical syndromes, new scientific insights and new therapy. Diabetes 2005;54:2503–13.
Pearson ER, et al. Switching from insulin to oral sulphonylureas in patients with diabetes due to Kir6.2 mutations. N Engl J Med 2006;355:467–77.
Klupa T, et al. The identification of a R201H mutation in KCNJ11, which encodes kir6.2, and successful transfer to sustained release sulphonylurea therapy in a subject with neonatal diabetes: evidence for heterogeneity of beta cell function among carriers of the R201H mutation. Diabetologia 2005;48:1029–31.
Sagen JV, et al. Permanent neonatal diabetes due to mutations in KCNJ11 encoding Kir6.2: patient characteristics and initial response to sulphonylurea therapy. Diabetes 2004;53:2713–18.
Zung A, et al. Glibenclamide treatment in permanent neonatal diabetes mellitus due to an activating mutation in Kir6.2. J Gun End ocrinol Metab 2004;89:5504–7.
Codner E, et al High-dose glibenclamide can replace insulin therapy despite transi-tory diarrhoea in early onset diabetes caused by a novel R201L Kir6.2 mutation. Diabetes Care 2005;28:758–9.
Slingerland AS, Hattersley AT. Mutations in the kir 6.2 subunit of the Katp channel and permanent neonatal diabetes: new insights and new treatment. Ann Med 2005;37:186–95.
Stride A, Hattersley AT. Different genes, different diabetes: lessons from maturity onset diabetes of the young. Ann Med 2002;34:207–16.
Shepherd M, et al. A genetic diagnosis of HNFlA diabetes alters treatment and improves glycaemic control in the majority of insulin treated patients. Diabetic Med 2009;26:437–41.
Pearson ER, et al Molecular genetics and phenotypic characteristics of MODY caused by hepatocyte nuclear factor 4 alpha mutations in a large European collection. Diabetologia 2005;48:878–85.
Murphy R, et al. Clinical implications of a molecular genetic classification of monogenic-cell diabetes. Nature 2008;4:200–17.
Eysenbach G, Kohler C. How do consumers search for and appraise health information on the world wide web? Qualitative study using focus groups, usability tests and in-depth interviews. BMJ2002;324:573–7.
Raivitch S, et al. What websites are patients using: results of a tracking study exploring patients use of websites at a multimedia patient education center. AIVIIA Annu Symp Proc 2005;1092.
Patt MR, et al. Doctors who are using e-mail with their patients: a qualitative exploration. J Med Internet Res 2003;5:e9.
Katzen C, et al E-mail and oncology: a survey of radiation oncology patients and their attitudes ti a new generation of health communication. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2005;8:189–93.
Houston TK, et al. Experiences of patients who were early adopters of electronic communication with their physician: satisfaction, benefits and concerns. Am J Manag Care 2004;10:601–8.
Houston TK, et al Experiences of physicians who frequently use e-mail with patients. Health Commun 2003;15:515–25.
Goodyear-Smith F, et al. Pandora's electronic box: GPs reflect upon e-mail communication with their patients. Inform Prim Care 2005;13:195–202.
Freed DH. Patient-physician e-mail: passion or fashion? Health Care Manag 2003; 22:265–74.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2010 Copyright © 2010 FEND
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
