Abstract

ABSTRACT: This study investigated influence of psycho-education on attitude to genetic counselling and cancer risk perception among relatives of persons living with cancer in Ibadan, Oyo state. The design adopted in this study was pretest and posttest control group design. A total of one hundred and one persons were purposively selected and participated in the first phase, while only forty-four persons qualified for the second phase of the study representing 22males (50%) and 22females (50%) participants were randomly selected into experimental and control groups of the study. Instruments used were attitude to genetic counselling scale developed by Adejumo,A.O with reported Chronbach’s alpha of α=0.59, ×=12.46±4.14, in this study a Chronbach’s alpha of α=0.77 was obtained, ×=17.11±3.18, and cancer risk perception scale by Lesley A.,D., Mark S., & Justin H.P (2009) with reported Chronbach’s alpha of α=0.82, in this study, Chronbach’s alpha of α=0.82 was obtained, ×=36.42 ±7.19. Six Hypotheses were formulated, the result of the first hypothesis showed that exposure to psycho-education boosted the level attitude towards genetic counselling favourably (t(43)=47.84;p<.001), (Mean = 17.57; S.D = 3.14), than before exposure to psycho-education, (Mean = 15.00; S.D = 2.08). As regards cancer risk perception, it is shown that psycho-education boosted the level of cancer risk perception (t (43) =63.98, p<.001), (Mean = 35.71; S.D= 3.70) than before exposure to psycho-education (Mean = 3.93; S.D = 3.93). Hypothesis two showed that there is significant difference between experimental and control group on genetic counselling (t(42) = 12.46; p<.001), also there is also significant differences between experimental group and control group on cancer risk perception (t (42) = 5.39; p<.001). Hypothesis three showed that sex had no significant main effect on attitude to genetic counselling [F (1, 15) = 5.76; P>.05] and cancer risk perception [F (1, 15) = .96; P>.05]. Also, educational qualification had no significant main effect on attitude to genetic counselling [F (1, 15) = 2.77; P>.05] and cancer risk perception [F (3, 15) = 1.69; P>.05]. In addition, sex and educational qualification wasfound to have no significant interactive effect on cancer risk perception [F (3, 15) = 16.40; P>.05]. However, sex and educational qualification was found to have significant interactive effect on attitude towards genetic counselling [F (2, 15) = 4.71; P>.05]. Hypothesis four shows marital status had no significant effect on attitude to genetic counselling [F (3, 40) = 1.766; P>.05], and on cancer risk perception (3, 40) =. 261; P>.05] Hypothesis five shows age had no significant effect on attitude to genetic counselling (t(42)=1.07; P>.05], and on cancer risk perception (t(42) = 1.25; P>.05], Hypothesis six shows number of visits to hospital had no significant effect on attitude to genetic counselling [F (3, 40)= 1.174; P>.05]. The study concluded that there was a predictive influence of SMS-based psycho-education on attitude to genetic counselling and cancer risk perception, and suggested that SMS-based psycho-education should be incorporate in the treatment plan. The study therefore recommended that the potent of the intervention should be tested on other dependable variables using the same mode of psycho-education i.e. SMS-based for future research.

Keywords: SMS-based Psycho-education, Attitude to Genetic Counselling, Cancer risk perception