ATAngela Maria Trepanier

Angela Maria Trepanier

*This is an algorithmically generated author record based on publicly available information.

Current Organizations / Institutes

The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article


Angela Maria Trepanier has a total of 10 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:


Latest Publications

  • Science, practice, and innovation in genetic counseling education: Introduction to the special issue

    by Nicola V. Taverner, Angela M. Trepanier, Beverly M. Yashar

  • Open Access

    Public Health Approaches and Barriers to Educating Providers about Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Syndrome

    by Angela M. Trepanier, Laura Supplee, Lindsey Blakely, Jenna McLosky, Debra Duquette

    The Michigan Department of Health and Human Services implemented and evaluated two initiatives designed to enhance provider knowledge of patients appropriate for breast and/or ovarian cancer genetic risk assessment and hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) syndrome testing. The first initiative targeted select providers who had diagnosed patients meeting HBOC risk criteria. Specifically, the initiative used 2008–2009 state cancer registry data to identify all providers who had diagnosed breast cancers in women ≤50 years of age, male breast cancers, and ovarian cancers in four health systems with newly established cancer genetics clinics. Using a method coined bidirectional reporting (BDR), reports highlighting how many of these cases each provider had seen were generated and mailed. Reports on 475 cancers (9.5% of the 5005 cases statewide meeting criteria) were sent to 69 providers with information about how and why to refer such patients for genetic counseling. Providers who received a report were contacted to assess whether the reports increased awareness or resulted in action (genetic counseling/referral). Based on the few responses received, despite multiple attempts to contact, and attrition rate, it is not possible to ascertain the impact of this initiative on providers. However the project resulted in the MDHHS identifying which providers see the largest proportion of at-risk patients, creating an opportunity to target those providers with HBOC education efforts. The second initiative involved creating and broadly disseminating an online, interactive case-based educational module to increase awareness and referral decisions for HBOC using high- and low-risk patient scenarios. A total of 1835 unique users accessed the module in a one year. Collectively the users viewed topic pages 2724 times and the interactive case studies 1369 times. Point of care tools (fact sheets) were viewed 1624 times and downloaded 764 times. Satisfaction among the subset of users applying for continuing medical education credit was high. The online educational module had a much broader reach than the bidirectional reporting initiative but to a self-selected audience. Combining targeted and broad-based provider education efforts may be a better way to increase HBOC awareness in the target audience, starting with those providers seeing the largest proportion of patients at risk.


  • Comparison of Informed Consent Preferences for Multiplex Genetic Carrier Screening among a Diverse Population

    by Ashley Reeves, Angela Trepanier

    Multiplex genetic carrier screening is increasingly being integrated into reproductive care. Obtaining informed consent becomes more challenging as the number of screened conditions increases. Implementing a model of generic informed consent may facilitate informed decision‐making. Current Wayne State University students and staff were invited to complete a web‐based survey by blast email solicitation. Participants were asked to determine which of two generic informed consent scenarios they preferred: a brief versus a detailed consent. They were asked to rank the importance of different informational components in making an informed decision and to provide demographic information. Comparisons between informational preferences, demographic variables and scenario preferences were made. Six hundred ninety three participants completed the survey. When evaluating these generic consents, the majority preferred the more detailed consent (74.5 %), and agreed that it provided enough information to make an informed decision (89.5 %). Those who thought it would be more important to know the severity of the conditions being screened (p = .002) and range of symptoms (p = .000) were more likely to prefer the more detailed consent. There were no significant associations between scenario preferences and demographic variables. A generic consent was perceived to provide sufficient information for informed decision making regarding multiplex carrier screening with most preferring a more detailed version of the consent. Individual attitudes rather than demographic variables influenced preferences regarding the amount of information that should be included in the generic consent. The findings have implications for how clinicians approach providing tailored informed consent.


  • Thinking Differently About Genetic Counseling Service Delivery

    by Angela M. Trepanier, Stephanie A. Cohen, Dawn C. Allain


  • Models of Service Delivery for Cancer Genetic Risk Assessment and Counseling

    by Angela M. Trepanier, Dawn C. Allain

    Increasing awareness of and the potentially concomitant increasing demand for cancer genetic services is driving the need to explore more efficient models of service delivery. The aims of this study were to determine which service delivery models are most commonly used by genetic counselors, assess how often they are used, compare the efficiency of each model as well as impact on access to services, and investigate the perceived benefits and barriers of each. Full members of the NSGC Familial Cancer Special Interest Group who subscribe to its listserv were invited to participate in a web‐based survey. Eligible respondents were asked which of ten defined service delivery models they use and specific questions related to aspects of model use. One‐hundred ninety‐two of the approximately 450 members of the listserv responded (42.7 %); 177 (92.2 %) had provided clinical service in the last year and were eligible to complete all sections of the survey. The four direct care models most commonly used were the (traditional) face‐to‐face pre‐ and post‐test model (92.2 %), the face‐to‐face pretest without face‐to‐face post‐test model (86.5 %), the post‐test counseling only for complex results model (36.2 %), and the post test counseling for all results model (18.3 %). Those using the face‐to‐face pretest only, post‐test all, and post‐test complex models reported seeing more new patients than when they used the traditional model and these differences were statistically significantly. There were no significant differences in appointment wait times or distances traveled by patients when comparing use of the traditional model to the other three models. Respondents recognize that a benefit of using alternative service delivery models is increased access to services; however, some are concerned that this may affect quality of care.


  • Open Access

    Losing Sight

    by Angela M. Trepanier