Top

Gepubliceerd in:

24-05-2015

Perceived ambiguity as a barrier to intentions to learn genome sequencing results

Auteurs: Jennifer M. Taber, William M. P. Klein, Rebecca A. Ferrer, Paul K. J. Han, Katie L. Lewis, Leslie G. Biesecker, Barbara B. Biesecker

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

Abstract

Many variants that could be returned from genome sequencing may be perceived as ambiguous—lacking reliability, credibility, or adequacy. Little is known about how perceived ambiguity influences thoughts about sequencing results. Participants (n = 494) in an NIH genome sequencing study completed a baseline survey before sequencing results were available. We examined how perceived ambiguity regarding sequencing results and individual differences in medical ambiguity aversion and tolerance for uncertainty were associated with cognitions and intentions concerning sequencing results. Perceiving sequencing results as more ambiguous was associated with less favorable cognitions about results and lower intentions to learn and share results. Among participants low in tolerance for uncertainty or optimism, greater perceived ambiguity was associated with lower intentions to learn results for non-medically actionable diseases; medical ambiguity aversion did not moderate any associations. Results are consistent with the phenomenon of “ambiguity aversion” and may influence whether people learn and communicate genomic information.

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

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

Different hypotheses concerning predictors of intentions to learn sequencing results in this sample have been tested and reported elsewhere. Other than intentions to receive and share sequencing results (Ferrer et al., 2014; Taber et al., 2015), the only measure currently included in other manuscripts is dispositional optimism, which was examined as a moderator of the effect of perceived risk on intentions to learn and use sequencing results (Taber et al., 2014). Descriptive statistics for the survey respondents are reported in Lewis et al., (2014) and Taber et al., (2014).

Log transformations were applied to normalize the distribution (for medically actionable intentions: original kurtosis = 2.72 and skew = −1.73, transformed kurtosis = −0.12 and skew = 1.11; for non-medically actionable intentions, original kurtosis = 2.07 and skew = −1.60; transformed kurtosis = −0.52 and skew = 0.92; for carrier status results: original kurtosis = 4.02 and skew = −1.92, transformed kurtosis = 0.07 and skew = 1.07).

Although paired t tests indicated that all five items assessing perceived ambiguity significantly differed from one another, qualitatively, participants on average reported greater endorsement that test results might be difficult to interpret (“I think scientists won’t be able to interpret much of my sequencing results,” M = 2.10, SD = 0.96; “It seems like my sequencing results will be interpreted in many different ways,” M = 2.92, SD = 0.95, and “I don’t think my sequencing results will give clear answers about my future health,” M = 2.69, SD = 0.93) than beliefs that results would not be trustworthy (M = 1.68, SD = 0.69) or accurate (M = 1.72, SD = 0.72). A subscale of only the former three items assessing interpretability had an unacceptable alpha of .641, and we therefore retained the 5-item scale with higher reliability (α = .743).

This interaction was further qualified by race (3-way interaction: β = 0.22, SE = 0.12, p = 0.045), such that optimism mitigated the effect of perceived ambiguity on intentions to learn results for non-medically actionable disease for White respondents, but not for respondents of other races.

Biesecker, L. G., & Green, R. C. (2014). Diagnostic clinical genome and exome sequencing. New England Journal of Medicine, 370, 2418–2425. doi:10.1056/NEJMra1312543 CrossRefPubMed

Biesecker, B. B., Klein, W., Lewis, K. L., Fisher, T. C., Wright, M. F., Biesecker, L. G., & Han, P. K. (2014). How do research participants perceive “uncertainty” in genome sequencing? Genetics in Medicine, 16, 977–980. doi:10.1038/gim.2014.57 CrossRefPubMed

Biesecker, L. G., Mullikin, J. C., Facio, F. M., Turner, C., Cherukuri, P. F., Blakesley, R. W., & Green, E. D. (2009). The ClinSeq project: Piloting large-scale genome sequencing for research in genome medicine. Genome Research, 19, 1665–1674. doi:10.1101/gr.092841.109 PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

Bollinger, J. M., Scott, J., Dvoskin, R., & Kaufman, D. (2012). Public preferences regarding the return of individual genetic research results: Findings from a qualitative focus group study. Genetics in Medicine, 14, 451–457. doi:10.1038/gim.2011.66 PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

Braithwaite, D., Sutton, S., & Steggles, N. (2002). Intention to participate in predictive genetic testing for hereditary cancer: The role of attitude toward uncertainty. Psychology and Health, 17, 761–772. doi:10.1080/0887044021000054764 CrossRef

Camerer, C., & Weber, M. (1992). Recent developments in modeling preferences: Uncertainty and ambiguity. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5, 325–370. doi:10.1007/BF00122575 CrossRef

Cameron, L. D., & Muller, C. (2009). Psychosocial aspects of genetic testing. Current Opinion in Psychiatry, 22, 218–223. doi:10.1097/YCO.0b013e3283252d80 CrossRefPubMed

Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (2002). Optimism. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 231–243). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Christensen, K. D., Roberts, J. S., Uhlmann, W. R., & Green, R. C. (2011). Changes to perceptions of the pros and cons of genetic susceptiblity testing after APOE genotyping for Alzheimer disease risk. Genetics in Medicine, 13, 409–414. doi:10.1097/GIM.0b013e3182076bf1 PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155 CrossRefPubMed

Ellsberg, D. (1961). Risk, ambiguity, and the savage axioms. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 75, 643–669. doi:10.2307/1884324 CrossRef

Facio, F. M., Brooks, S., Loewenstein, J., Green, S., Biesecker, L. G., & Biesecker, B. B. (2011). Motivators for participation in a whole-genome sequencing study: implications for translational genomics research. European Journal of Human Genetics, 19, 1213–1217. doi:10.1038/ejhg.2011.123 PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

Facio, F. M., Eidem, H., Fisher, T., Brooks, S., Linn, A., Kaphingst, K. A., et al. (2013). Intentions to receive individual results from whole-genome sequencing among participants in the ClinSeq Study. European Journal of Human Genetics, 21, 261–265. doi:10.1038/ejhg.2012.179 PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

Ferrer, R. A., Taber, J. M., Klein, W. M. P., Harris, P., Lewis, K., & Biesecker, L. G. (2014). The role of current affect, anticipated affect, and spontaneous self-affirmation in decisions to receive self-threatening genetic risk information. Cognition & Emotion. doi:10.1080/02699931.2014.985188

Foster, M. W., Mulvihill, J. J., & Sharp, R. R. (2009). Evaluating the utility of personal genomic information. Genetics in Medicine, 11, 570–574. doi:10.1097/GIM.0b013e3181a2743e CrossRefPubMed

Geller, G., Tambor, E. S., Chase, G. A., & Holtzman, N. A. (1993). Measuring physicians’ tolerance for uncertainty and its relationship to their reported practices regarding genetic testing. Medical Care, 31, 989–1001. doi:10.1097/00005650-199311000-00002 CrossRefPubMed

Hamilton, J. G., Hutson, S. P., Moser, R. P., Kobrin, S. C., Frohnmayer, A. E., Alter, B. P., & Han, P. K. (2013). Sources of uncertainty and their association with medical decision making: exploring mechanisms in Fanconi anemia. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 4, 204–216. doi:10.1007/s12160-013-9507-5 CrossRef

Han, P. K. (2013). Conceptual, methodological, and ethical problems in communicating uncertainty in clinical evidence. Medical Care Research and Review, 70, 14S–36S. doi:10.1177/1077558712459361 PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

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

Han, P. K., Klein, W. M. P., Lehman, T., Killam, B., Massett, H., & Freedman, A. N. (2011b). Communication of uncertainty regarding individualized cancer risk estimates: Effects and influential factors. Medical Decision Making, 31, 354–366. doi:10.1177/0272989X10371830 PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

Han, P. K., Klein, W. M., Lehman, T. C., Massett, H., Lee, S. C., & Freedman, A. N. (2009a). Laypersons’ responses to the communication of uncertainty regarding cancer risk estimates. Medical Decision Making, 29, 391–403. doi:10.1177/0272989x08327396 PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

Han, P. K., Kobrin, S. C., Klein, W. M., Davis, W. W., Stefanek, M., & Taplin, S. H. (2007a). Perceived ambiguity about screening mammography recommendations: association with future mammography uptake and perceptions. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention, 16, 458–466. doi:10.1158/1055-9965.epi-06-0533 CrossRefPubMed

Han, P. K., Moser, R. P., & Klein, W. M. P. (2007b). Perceived ambiguity about cancer prevention recommendations: Associations with cancer-related perceptions and behaviors in a US population survey. Health Expectations, 10, 321–336. doi:10.1111/j.1369-7625.2007.00456.x PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

Han, P. K., Reeve, B. B., Moser, R. P., & Klein, W. M. P. (2009b). Aversion to ambiguity regarding medical tests and treatments: Measurement, prevalence, and relationship to sociodemographic factors. Journal of Health Communication, 14, 556–572. doi:10.1080/10810730903089630 PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

Han, P. K., Williams, A. E., Haskins, A., Gutheil, C., Lucas, F. L., Klein, W. M. P., & Mazor, K. M. (2014). Individual differences in aversion to ambiguity regarding medical tests and treatments: Association with cancer screening cognitions. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, 23, 2916–2923. doi:10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-14-0872 CrossRef

Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Hensley, Alford S., McBride, C. M., Reid, R. J., Larson, E. B., Baxevanis, A. D., & Brody, L. C. (2011). Participation in genetic testing research varies by social group. Public Health Genomics, 14, 85–93. doi:10.1159/000294277 CrossRef

Howell, J. L., Crosier, B. S., & Shepperd, J. A. (2014). Does lacking threat-management resources increase information avoidance? A multi-sample, multi-method investigation. Journal of Research in Personality, 50, 102–109. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2014.03.003 CrossRef

Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. (2010). Direct-to-consumer genetic testing: Summary of a workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Kaphingst, K. A., Facio, F. M., Cheng, M. R., Brooks, S., Eidem, H., Linn, A., & Biesecker, L. G. (2012). Effects of informed consent for individual genome sequencing on relevant knowledge. Clinical Genetics, 82, 408–415. doi:10.1111/j.1399-0004.2012.01909.x PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

Lewis, K. L., Han, P. K., Hooker, G. W., Klein, W. M. P., Biesecker, L. G., Biesecker, B. B. (2014). Characterizing participants in the ClinSeq ^® genomic sequencing cohort as early adopters of a new health technology. Manuscript submitted for publication.

MacArthur, D. G., Manolio, T. A., Dimmock, D. P., Rehm, H. L., Shendure, J., Abecasis, G. R., et al. (2014). Guidelines for investigating causality of sequence variants in human disease. Nature, 508, 469–476. doi:10.1038/nature13127 PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

Nussbaum, S., Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (2006). Predicting the near and distant future. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135, 152–161. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.135.2.152 CrossRef

Office of Personnel Management (2014). 2014 General schedule (GS) locality pay tables. Retrieved from. http://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/2014/general-schedule/

Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (1993). On the power of positive thinking: The benefits of being optimistic. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 2, 26–30. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.ep10770572 CrossRef

Scheier, M. F., Carver, C. S., & Bridges, M. W. (1994). Distinguishing optimism from neuroticism (and trait anxiety, self-mastery, and self-esteem): A reevaluation of the Life Orientation Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 1063–1078. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.67.6.1063 CrossRefPubMed

Stoffel, E. M., Ford, B., Mercado, R. C., Punglia, D., Kohlmann, W., Conrad, P., & Syngal, S. (2008). Sharing genetic test results in Lynch syndrome: communication with close and distant relatives. Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, 6, 333–338. doi:10.1016/j.cgh.2007.12.014 PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

Sweeny, K., Ghane, A., Legg, A. M., Huynh, H. P., & Andrews, S. E. (2014). Predictors of genetic testing decisions: A systematic review and critique of the literature. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 23, 263–288. doi:10.1007/s10897-014-9712-9 CrossRefPubMed

Sweeny, K., & Shepperd, J. A. (2010). The costs of optimism and the benefits of pessimism. Emotion, 10, 750–753. doi:10.1037/a0019016 CrossRefPubMed

Taber, J. M., Klein, W. M. P., Ferrer, R. A., Biesecker, B. B., Lewis, K. L., & Biesecker, L. G. (2014). Dispositional optimism and perceived risk interact to predict intentions to learn genome sequencing results. Health Psychology. doi:10.1037/hea0000159 PubMedCentralPubMed

Taber, J. M., Klein, W. M. P., Ferrer, R. A., Lewis, K. L., Harris, P. R., Shepperd, J. A., & Biesecker, L. G. (2015). Information avoidance tendencies, threat management resources, and interest in genetic sequencing feedback. Annals of Behavioral Medicine. doi:10.1007/s12160-014-9679-7 PubMedCentralPubMed

Vos, J., Menko, F. H., Oosterwijk, J. C., van Asperen, C. J., Stiggelbout, A. M., & Tibben, A. (2013). Genetic counseling does not fulfill the counselees’ need for certainty in hereditary breast/ovarian cancer families: an explorative assessment. Psychooncology, 22, 1167–1176. doi:10.1002/pon.3125 CrossRefPubMed

Wilson, B. J., Forrest, K., van Teijlingen, E. R., McKee, L., Haites, N., Matthews, E., & Simpson, S. A. (2004). Family communication about genetic risk: The little that is known. Community Genetics, 7, 15–24. doi:10.1159/000080300 CrossRefPubMed

Wright, M. F., Lewis, K. L., Fisher, T. C., Hooker, G. W., Emanuel, T. E., Biesecker, L. G., & Biesecker, B. B. (2014). Preferences for results delivery from exome sequencing/genome sequencing. Genetics in Medicine, 16, 442–447. doi:10.1038/gim.2013.170 CrossRefPubMed

Titel: Perceived ambiguity as a barrier to intentions to learn genome sequencing results
Auteurs: Jennifer M. Taber
William M. P. Klein
Rebecca A. Ferrer
Paul K. J. Han
Katie L. Lewis
Leslie G. Biesecker
Barbara B. Biesecker
Publicatiedatum: 24-05-2015
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/s10865-015-9642-5

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 5/2015

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

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

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

Modeling predictors of changes in glycemic control and diabetes-specific quality of life amongst adults with type 1 diabetes 1 year after structured education in flexible, intensive insulin therapy

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

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