Top

Gepubliceerd in:

01-06-2012

Communication strategies for enhancing understanding of the behavioral implications of genetic and biomarker tests for disease risk: The role of coherence

Auteurs: Linda D. Cameron, Theresa M. Marteau, Paul M. Brown, William M. P. Klein, Kerry A. Sherman

Gepubliceerd in: Journal of Behavioral Medicine | Uitgave 3/2012

Abstract

Individuals frequently have difficulty understanding how behavior can reduce genetically-conferred risk for diseases such as colon cancer. With increasing opportunities to purchase genetic tests, communication strategies are needed for presenting information in ways that optimize comprehension and adaptive behavior. Using the Common-Sense Model, we tested the efficacy of a strategy for providing information about the relationships (links) among the physiological processes underlying disease risk and protective action on understanding, protective action motivations, and willingness to purchase tests. We tested the generalizability of the strategy’s effects across varying risk levels, for genetic tests versus tests of a non-genetic biomarker, and when using graphic and numeric risk formats. In an internet-based experiment, 749 adults from four countries responded to messages about a hypothetical test for colon cancer risk. Messages varied by Risk-Action Link Information (provision or no provision of information describing how a low-fat diet reduces risk given positive results, indicating presence of a gene fault), Risk Increment (20%, 50%, or 80% risk given positive results), Risk Format (numeric or graphic presentation of risk increments), and Test Type (genetic or enzyme). Providing risk-action link information enhanced beliefs of coherence (understanding how a low-fat diet reduces risk) and response efficacy (low-fat diets effectively reduce risk) and lowered appraisals of anticipated risk of colon cancer given positive results. These effects held across risk increments, risk formats, and test types. For genetic tests, provision of risk-action link information reduced the amount individuals were willing to pay for testing. Brief messages explaining how action can reduce genetic and biomarker-detected risks can promote beliefs motivating protective action. By enhancing understanding of behavioral control, they may reduce the perceived value of genetic risk information.

vorige artikel A randomized controlled trial of mindfulness-based stress reduction to manage affective symptoms and improve quality of life in gay men living with HIV

volgende artikel Improvement in glycemic control following a diabetes education intervention is associated with change in diabetes distress but not change in depressive symptoms

23andme. (2011). Downloaded on May 28 2011 from the 23andme website: http://www.23andme.com/

Beery, T. A., & Williams, J. K. (2007). Risk reduction and health promotion behaviors following genetic testing for adult-onset disorders. Genetic Testing, 11, 111–123.PubMedCrossRef

Bishop, A. J., Marteau, T. M., Hall, S., Kitchener, H., & Hayek, P. (2005). Increasing women’s intentions to stop smoking following an abnormal cervical smear test result. Preventive Medicine, 41, 179–185.PubMedCrossRef

Brownlee, S., Leventhal, H., & Leventhal, E. A. (2000). Regulation, self-regulation and regulation of the self in maintaining physical health. In M. Boekartz, P. R. Pintrick, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self regulation (pp. 369–416). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Bruine de Bruin, W., Fischhoff, B., Millstein, S. G., & Halpern-Felsher, B. L. (2000). Verbal and numerical expressions of probability: “It’s a fifty–fifty chance”. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 81, 115–131.

Cameron, L. D. (2008). Illness risk representations and motivations to engage in protective behavior: The case of skin cancer risk. Psychology and Health, 23, 91–112.CrossRef

Cameron, L. D., & Muller, C. (2009). Psychosocial aspects of genetic testing. Current Opinion in Psychiatry, 22, 218–223.PubMedCrossRef

Cameron, L. D., & Reeve, J. (2006). Risk perceptions, worry, and attitudes about genetic testing for breast cancer susceptibility. Psychology and Health, 21, 211–230.PubMedCrossRef

Cameron, L. D., Sherman, K. A., Marteau, T. M., & Brown, P. M. (2009). Impact of genetic risk information and type of disease on perceived risk, anticipated affect, and expected consequences of genetic tests. Health Psychology, 28, 307–316.PubMedCrossRef

French, D. P., & Marteau, T. M. (2007). Communicating risk. In S. Ayers, A. Baum, C. McManus, S. Newman, K. Wallston, & J. Weinman (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of psychology, health, and medicine (2nd ed., pp. 431–434). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Frosch, D. L., Mello, P., & Lerman, C. (2005). Behavioral consequences of testing for obesity risk. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention, 14, 1485–1489.PubMedCrossRef

Grosse, S., Wordsworth, S., & Payne, K. (2008). Economic methods for valuing the outcomes of genetic testing: Beyond cost-effectiveness analysis. Genetics in Medicine, 10, 648–654.PubMedCrossRef

Hall, J., Fiebig, D. G., King, M. T., Hossain, I., & Louviere, J. J. (2006). What influences participation in genetic carrier testing? Results from a discrete choice experiment. Journal of Health Economics, 25, 520–537.PubMedCrossRef

Hall, S., Weinman, J., & Marteau, T. M. (2004). The motivational impact of informing women smokers of a link between smoking and cervical cancer: The role of coherence. Health Psychology, 23, 419–424.PubMedCrossRef

Ito, H., Matsuo, K., Wakai, K., et al. (2006). An intervention study of smoking cessation with feedback on genetic cancer susceptibility in Japan. Preventive Medicine, 4, 102–108.CrossRef

Karamanidou, D., Weinman, J., & Horne, R. (2008). Improving haemodialysis patients’ understanding of phosphate-binding medication: A pilot study of a psycho-educational intervention designed to change patients’ perceptions of the problem and treatment. British Journal of Health Psychology, 13, 205–214.PubMedCrossRef

Klein, W. (1997). Objective standards are not enough: Affective, self-evaluative, and behavioral responses to social comparison information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 763–774.PubMedCrossRef

Lerman, C., Croyle, R. T., Tercyak, K. P., & Hamann, H. (2002). Genetic testing: Psychological aspects and implications. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 70, 784–797.PubMedCrossRef

Leventhal, H., Brissette, I., & Leventhal, E. A. (2003). The common-sense model of self-regulation of health and illness. In L. D. Cameron & H. Leventhal (Eds.), The self-regulation of health and illness behaviour (pp. 42–65). London: Routledge.

Lipkus, I. M., Biradavolu, M., Fenn, K., Keller, P., & Rimer, B. (2001). Informing women about their breast cancer risks: Truth and consequences. Health Communication, 13, 205–226.PubMedCrossRef

Marteau, T. M., & Lerman, C. (2001). Genetic risk and behavioural change. British Medical Journal, 322, 1056–1059.PubMedCrossRef

Marteau, T. M., Senior, V., Humphries, S. E., Bobrow, M., Cranston, T., Crook, M. A., et al. (2004). Psychological impact of genetic testing for familial hypercholesterolaemia in a previously aware population: A randomized controlled trial. American Journal of Medical Genetics, 128A, 285–293.PubMedCrossRef

Marteau, T. M., & Weinman, J. (2006). Self-regulation and the behavioural response to DNA risk information: A theoretical analysis and framework for future research. Social Science and Medicine, 62, 1360–1368.PubMedCrossRef

McBride, C. M., Bepher, G., Lipkus, I. M., Lyna, P., Samsa, G., Albright, J., et al. (2002). Incorporating genetic susceptibility feedback into a smoking cessation program for African American smokers with low income. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention, 11, 521–528.PubMed

McBride, C. N., Bowen, D., Brody, L. C., Condit, C. M., Croyle, R. T., Gwinn, M., et al. (2010a). Future health applications of genomics: Priorities for communication, behavioral, and social sciences research. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 38, 555–561.CrossRef

McBride, C. M., Koehly, L. M., Sanderson, S. C., & Kaphingst, K. (2010b). The behavioral response to personalized genetic information: Will genetic risk profiles motivate individuals and families to choose more healthful behaviors? Annual Review of Public Health, 31, 89–103.PubMedCrossRef

Navigenics. (2011). Downloaded on May 28, 2011 from the Navigenics Website: http://www.navigenics.com/

NCCN. (2011). Colorectal cancer screening. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. Downloaded on May 28, 2011 from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Website: http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/f_guidelines.asp

Olsen, J., Donaldson, C., & Pereira, J. (2004). The insensitivity of ‘willingness-to-pay’ to the size of the good: New evidence for health care. Journal of Economic Psychology, 25, 445–460.CrossRef

Olson, J., & Smith, R. (2001). Theory versus practice: A review of willingness-to-pay in health and health care. Health Economics, 10, 39–52.CrossRef

President and Fellows of Harvard College. (2007). Your disease risk. Downloaded from Harvard University, School of Public Health Website: http://www.diseaseriskindex.harvard.edu

Sanderson, S. C., & Michie, S. (2007). Genetic testing for heart disease susceptibility: Potential impact on motivaiton to quit smoking. Clinical Genetics, 71, 501–510.PubMedCrossRef

Witte, K., & Allen, M. (2000). A meta-analysis of fear appeals: Implications for effective public health campaigns. Health Education and Behavior, 27, 608–632.CrossRef

Wright, A. J., Weinman, J., & Marteau, T. M. (2003). The impact of learning of a genetic predisposition to nicotine dependence: An analogue study. Tobacco Control, 12, 227–230.PubMedCrossRef

Titel: Communication strategies for enhancing understanding of the behavioral implications of genetic and biomarker tests for disease risk: The role of coherence
Auteurs: Linda D. Cameron
Theresa M. Marteau
Paul M. Brown
William M. P. Klein
Kerry A. Sherman
Publicatiedatum: 01-06-2012
Uitgeverij: Springer US
Gepubliceerd in: Journal of Behavioral Medicine / Uitgave 3/2012
Print ISSN: 0160-7715
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-3521
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10865-011-9361-5

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 3/2012

The effectiveness of a motivational interviewing primary-care based intervention on physical activity and predictors of change in a disadvantaged community

A longitudinal analysis of intimacy processes and psychological distress among couples coping with head and neck or lung cancers

A randomized controlled trial of mindfulness-based stress reduction to manage affective symptoms and improve quality of life in gay men living with HIV

Promoting physical activity with goal-oriented mental imagery: a randomized controlled trial

Improvement in glycemic control following a diabetes education intervention is associated with change in diabetes distress but not change in depressive symptoms

The interplay of dyadic and individual planning of pelvic-floor exercise in prostate-cancer patients following radical prostatectomy