Top

Gepubliceerd in:

16-07-2015

Genetic test reporting enhances understanding of risk information and acceptance of prevention recommendations compared to family history-based counseling alone

Auteurs: Jennifer M. Taber, Lisa G. Aspinwall, Tammy K. Stump, Wendy Kohlmann, Marjan Champine, Sancy A. Leachman

Gepubliceerd in: Journal of Behavioral Medicine | Uitgave 5/2015

Abstract

It is unknown whether or why genetic test reporting confers benefits in the understanding and management of cancer risk beyond what patients learn from counseling based on family history. A prospective nonexperimental control group study compared participants from melanoma-prone families who underwent CDKN2A/p16 (p16) genetic testing (27 carriers, 38 noncarriers) to participants from equivalently melanoma-prone families known not to carry a deleterious p16 mutation (31 no-test controls). All participants received equivalent counseling concerning elevated lifetime melanoma risk and corresponding recommendations for prevention and screening. Both immediately and 1 month after counseling, participants receiving a genetic test result reported greater understanding of their risk, decreased derogation of the risk information, and greater personal applicability of prevention recommendations than no-test controls. Decreased derogation of risk information after test reporting predicted further increases in understanding of melanoma risk and applicability of prevention recommendations 1 month later. Results suggest unique benefits of genetic test reporting in promoting understanding and acceptance of information about hereditary cancer risk and its management.

vorige artikel Intuition versus cognition: a qualitative exploration of how women understand and manage their increased breast cancer risk

volgende artikel Impact of melanoma genetic test reporting on perceived control over melanoma prevention

Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers

Aspinwall, L. G., Taber, J. M., Kohlmann, W., & Leachman, S. A. (2013a). Psychological aspects of hereditary cancer risk counseling and genetic testing. In B. I. Carr & J. Steel (Eds.), Psychological aspects of cancer (pp. 31–64). New York, NY: Springer.CrossRef

Aspinwall, L. G., Taber, J. M., Kohlmann, W., Leaf, S. L., & Leachman, S. A. (2014a). Perceived risk following melanoma genetic testing: A 2-year prospective study distinguishing subjective estimates from recall. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 23, 421–437. doi:10.1007/s10897-013-9676-1 PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

Aspinwall, L. G., Taber, J. M., Kohlmann, W., Leaf, S. L., & Leachman, S. A. (2014b). Unaffected family members report improvements in daily routine sun protection 2 years following melanoma genetic testing. Genetics in Medicine, 16, 846–853. doi:10.1038/gim.2014.37 CrossRefPubMed

Aspinwall, L. G., Taber, J. M., Leaf, S. L., Kohlmann, W., & Leachman, S. A. (2013b). Melanoma genetic counseling and test reporting improve screening adherence among unaffected carriers 2 years later. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention, 22, 1687–1697. doi:10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-13-0422 CrossRefPubMed

Begg, C., Orlow, I., Hummer, A., Armstrong, B., Kricker, A., Marrett, L., et al. (2005). Lifetime risk of melanoma in CDKN2A mutation carriers in a population-based sample. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 97, 1507–1515. doi:10.1093/jnci/dji312 CrossRefPubMed

Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238–246. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238 CrossRefPubMed

Bishop, D., Demenais, F., Goldstein, A., Bergman, W., Bishop, J., Bressac-de Paillerets, B., et al. (2002). Geographical variation in the penetrance of CDKN2A mutations for melanoma. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 94, 894–903. doi:10.1093/jnci/94.12.894 CrossRefPubMed

Claes, E., Evers-Kiebooms, G., Denayer, L., Decruyenaere, M., Boogaerts, A., Philippe, K., et al. (2005). Predictive genetic testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer: Psychological distress and illness representations 1 year following disclosure. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 14, 349–363. doi:10.1007/s10897-005-1371-4 CrossRefPubMed

Croyle, R., Loftus, E., Barger, S., Sun, Y., Hart, M., & Gettig, J. (2006). How well do people recall risk factor test results? Accuracy and bias among cholesterol screening participants. Health Psychology, 25, 425–432. doi:10.1037/0278-6133.25.3.425 CrossRefPubMed

de Hoog, N., Stroebe, W., & de Wit, J. F. (2007). The impact of vulnerability to and severity of a health risk on processing and acceptance of fear-arousing communications: A meta-analysis. Review of General Psychology, 11, 258–285. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.11.3.258 CrossRef

Dutton-Regester, K., & Hayward, N. (2012). Reviewing the somatic genetics of melanoma: From current to future analytical approaches. Pigment Cell & Melanoma Research, 25, 144–154. doi:10.1111/j.1755-148X.2012.00975.x CrossRef

Geller, A., Emmons, K., Brooks, D., Zhang, Z., Powers, C., Koh, H., et al. (2003). Skin cancer prevention and detection practices among siblings of patients with melanoma. Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, 49, 631–638. doi:10.1067/S0190-9622(03)02126-1 CrossRefPubMed

Gerstenblith, M. R., Goldstein, A. M., Tucker, M. A., & Fraser, M. C. (2007). Genetic testing for melanoma predisposition: Current challenges. Cancer Nursing, 30, 452–459.CrossRefPubMed

Glanz, K., Volpicelli, K., Kanetsky, P. A., Ming, M. E., Schuchter, L. M., Jepson, C., et al. (2013). Melanoma genetic testing, counseling, and adherence to skin cancer prevention and detection behaviors. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention, 22, 607–614. doi:10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-12-1174 PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

Good, A., & Abraham, C. (2007). Measuring defensive responses to threatening messages: A meta-analysis of measures. Health Psychology Review, 1, 208–229. doi:10.1080/17437190802280889 CrossRef

Gould, R. V., Brown, S. L., & Bramwell, R. (2010). Psychological adjustment to gynaecological cancer: Patients’ illness representations, coping strategies and mood disturbance. Psychology & Health, 25, 633–646. doi:10.1080/08870440902811163 CrossRef

Han, P. J., Klein, W. P., & Arora, N. K. (2011). Varieties of uncertainty in health care: A conceptual taxonomy. Medical Decision Making, 31, 828–838. doi:10.1177/0272989X11393976 PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

Jemmott, J. B., Ditto, P. H., & Croyle, R. T. (1986). Judging health status: Effects of perceived prevalence and personal relevance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 899–905. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.50.5.899 CrossRefPubMed

Kaptein, A. A., van Korlaar, I. M., Cameron, L. D., Vossen, C. Y., van der Meer, F. M., & Rosendaal, F. R. (2007). Using the common-sense model to predict risk perception and disease-related worry in individuals at increased risk for venous thrombosis. Health Psychology, 26, 807–812. doi:10.1037/0278-6133.26.6.807 CrossRefPubMed

Kasparian, N., Meiser, B., Butow, P., Simpson, J., & Mann, G. (2009). Genetic testing for melanoma risk: A prospective cohort study of uptake and outcomes among Australian families. Genetics in Medicine, 11, 265–278. doi:10.1097/GIM.0b013e3181993175 CrossRefPubMed

Kefford, R., Newton Bishop, J., Bergman, W., & Tucker, M. (1999). Counseling and DNA testing for individuals perceived to be genetically predisposed to melanoma: A consensus statement of the Melanoma Genetics Consortium. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 17, 3245–3251.PubMed

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). New York, NY: Routledge.

Liberman, A., & Chaiken, S. (1992). Defensive processing of personally relevant health messages. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 669–679. doi:10.1177/0146167292186002 CrossRef

Lipkus, I., McBride, C., Pollak, K., Lyna, P., & Bepler, G. (2004). Interpretation of genetic risk feedback among African American smokers with low socioeconomic status. Health Psychology, 23, 178–188. doi:10.1037/0278-6133.23.2.178 CrossRefPubMed

Manne, S., Fasanella, N., Connors, J., Floyd, B., Wang, H., & Lessin, S. (2004). Sun protection and skin surveillance practices among relatives of patients with malignant melanoma: Prevalence and predictors. Preventive Medicine, 39, 36–47. doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2004.02.028 CrossRefPubMed

McQueen, A., Vernon, S. W., & Swank, P. R. (2013). Construct definition and scale development for defensive information processing: An application to colorectal cancer screening. Health Psychology, 32, 190–202. doi:10.1037/a0027311 CrossRefPubMed

Moss-Morris, R., Weinman, J., Petrie, K. J., Horne, R., Cameron, L. D., & Buick, D. (2002). The revised illness perception questionnaire (IPQ-R). Psychology & Health, 17, 1–16. doi:10.1080/08870440290001494 CrossRef

Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998). Mplus user’s guide [Computer software manual]. Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.

Read, C. Y., Perry, D. J., & Duffy, M. E. (2005). Design and Psychometric Evaluation of the Psychological Adaptation to Genetic Information Scale. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 37, 203–208. doi:10.1111/j.1547-5069.2005.00036.x CrossRefPubMed

Reed, M. B., & Aspinwall, L. G. (1998). Self-affirmation reduces biased processing of health-risk information. Motivation and Emotion, 22, 99–132. doi:10.1023/A:1021463221281 CrossRef

Rothman, A. J., & Kiviniemi, M. (1999). “Treating people with health information”: Analysis and review of approaches to communicating health risk information. Journal of the National Cancer Institute Monographs, 25, 44–51.CrossRefPubMed

Scherer, L. D., Ubel, P. A., McClure, J., Greene, S. M., Alford, S., Holtzman, L., et al. (2013). Belief in numbers: When and why women disbelieve tailored breast cancer risk statistics. Patient Education and Counseling, 92, 253–259. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2013.03.016 PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

van Oostrom, I., Meijers-Heijboer, H., Duivenvoorden, H. J., Bröcker-Vriends, A. T., van Asperen, C. J., Sijmons, R. H., & Tibben, A. (2007). The common sense model of self-regulation and psychological adjustment to predictive genetic testing: A prospective study. Psycho-Oncology, 16, 1121–1129. doi:10.1002/pon.1178 CrossRefPubMed

van’t Riet, J., & Ruiter, R. C. (2013). Defensive reactions to health-promoting information: An overview and implications for future research. Health Psychology Review, 7, S104–S136. doi:10.1080/17437199.2011.606782 CrossRef

Wiebe, D. J., & Korbel, C. (2003). Defensive denial, affect, and the self-regulation of health threats. In L. D. Cameron & H. Leventhal (Eds.), The self-regulation of health and illness behaviour (pp. 184–203). New York, NY: Routledge.

Witte, K. (1994). Fear control and danger control: A test of the extended parallel process model (EPPM). Communication Monographs, 61, 113–134. doi:10.1080/03637759409376328 CrossRef

Titel: Genetic test reporting enhances understanding of risk information and acceptance of prevention recommendations compared to family history-based counseling alone
Auteurs: Jennifer M. Taber
Lisa G. Aspinwall
Tammy K. Stump
Wendy Kohlmann
Marjan Champine
Sancy A. Leachman
Publicatiedatum: 16-07-2015
Uitgeverij: Springer US
Gepubliceerd in: Journal of Behavioral Medicine / Uitgave 5/2015
Print ISSN: 0160-7715
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-3521
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10865-015-9648-z

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 5/2015

Cultural beliefs about health professionals and perceived empathy influence continuity of cancer screening following a negative encounter

Effects of genetic and environmental risk assessment feedback on colorectal cancer screening adherence

The effect of disease risk probability and disease type on interest in clinic-based versus direct-to-consumer genetic testing services

Retraction Note to: Preference for immediate reinforcement over delayed reinforcement: relation between delay discounting and health behavior

Current directions in behavioral medicine research on genetic testing for disease susceptibility: introduction to the special section

The roles of ethnicity, sex, and parental pain modeling in rating of experienced and imagined pain events