Table 3 Direction of effect for primary outcome measures.
Studies | Sample Size | Control (%) | Intervention (%) | Percentage increase or decrease between control and intervention group |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Forrest et al. (2008) | Control: 8 probands and 55 at-risk relatives. Intervention: 11 probands and 76 at-risk relatives. | 36 relatives contacted 33 relatives tested | 61 relatives contacted 57 relatives tested | 69% increase 73% increase |
Kardashian et al. (2012) | Control: 10 probands and 134 at-risk relatives. Intervention: 9 probands and 73 at-risk relatives. | Self-reported sharing with: 88 FDRs 38 SDRs Relatives accessing testing: 25 FDRs 67 SDRs | Self-reported sharing with: 90 FDRs 75 SDRs Relatives accessing testing: 20 FRDs 14 SDRs | 2% increase 97% increase 20% decrease 79% decrease |
Montgomery et al. (2013) | Control: 158 probands. 1385 relatives in total. Intervention: 187 probands. | One relative informed 99 All relatives informed 53 | One relative informed 99 All relatives informed 54 | 0% increase 2% increase |
Hodgson et al. (2016) | Control: 50 probands and 536 at-risk relatives. Intervention: 45 probands and 554 at-risk relatives. | Relatives accessing testing 21 | Relatives accessing testing 26 | 24% increase |
Eijzenga et al. (2018) | Control: 157 probands and 628 at risk relatives. Intervention: 148 probands and 636 at risk relatives. | 83 FDRs correctly informed 78 SDRs correctly informed | 82 FRDs correctly informed 75 SDRs correctly informed | 1% decrease 4% decrease |
