Top

Gepubliceerd in:

27-03-2015

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

Auteurs: Kerry Sherman, Laura-Kate Shaw, Katrina Champion, Fernanda Caldeira, Margaret McCaskill

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

Abstract

The effect of disease-specific cognitions on interest in clinic-based and direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing was assessed. Participants (N = 309) responded to an online hypothetical scenario and received genetic testing-related messages that varied by risk probability (25, 50, 75 %) and disease type (Alzheimer’s disease vs. Type 2 Diabetes). Post-manipulation interest increased for both testing types, but was greater for clinic-based testing. Interest was greater for Type 2 Diabetes than for Alzheimer’s disease, the latter perceived as more severe and likely, and less treatable and preventable. For DTC testing only, participants allocated to the high risk condition (75 %) had greater testing interest than those in the low (25 %) category. DTC testing is perceived as a viable, but less preferred, option compared with clinic-based testing. Particularly when considering DTC genetic testing, there is a need to emphasize subjective disease-related perceptions, including risk probability.

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

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

Barlow-Stewart, K. (2007). DNA genetic testing—Screening for genetic conditions and genetic susceptibility [Fact sheet]. In Centre for Genetics Education (Ed.), The Australasian genetics resource book. Retrieved 16th October, 2014 from http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/file/your_health/egenetics/FS21-dna-genetic-testing.pdf

Barnoy, S. (2007). Genetic testing for late-onset diseases: effect of disease controllability, test predictivity, and gender on the decision to take the test. Genetic Testing, 11, 187–192. doi:10.1089/gte.2006.0509 CrossRefPubMed

Browne, J. L., Ventura, A., Mosely, K., & Speight, J. (2013). ‘I call it the blame and shame disease’: A qualitative study about perceptions of social stigma surrounding type 2 diabetes. British Medical Journal Open, 3. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2013-003384

Burt, R., & Neklason, D. W. (2005). Genetic testing for inherited colon cancer. Gastroenterology, 128, 1696–1716.CrossRefPubMed

Cameron, L. D., Marteau, T. M., Brown, P. M., Klein, W. M., & Sherman, K. A. (2011). Communication strategies for enhancing understanding of the behavioral implications of genetic and biomarker tests for disease risk: The role of coherence. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 35, 286–298. doi:10.1007/s10865-011-9361-5 CrossRefPubMed

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

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. doi:10.1037/a0013947 CrossRefPubMed

Caulfield, T., Ries, N. M., Ray, P. N., Shuman, C., & Wilson, B. (2010). Direct-to-consumer genetic testing: Good, bad or benign? Clinical Genetics, 77, 101–105. doi:10.1111/j.1399-0004.2009.01291.x CrossRefPubMed

de Bruin, W. B., 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. doi:10.1006/obhd.1999.2868

Diabetes Australia. (2013). Type 2 diabetes. http://www.diabetesaustralia.com.au/Understanding-Diabetes/What-is-Diabetes/Type-2-Diabetes/#Preventing. Type 2 Diabetes.

easyDNA. (2014). Genetic predisposition test. http://www.easydna.com.au/content/index.php?section_id=37

Edwards, K. T., & Huang, C. J. (2014). Bridging the consumer-medical divide: How to regulate direct-to-consumer genetic testing. Hastings Center Report, 44, 17–19. doi:10.1002/hast.310 PubMed

Egglestone, C., Morris, A., & O’Brien, A. (2013). Effect of direct-to-consumer genetic tests on health behaviour and anxiety: A survey of consumers and potential consumers. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 22, 565–575. doi:10.1007/s10897-013-9582-6 CrossRefPubMed

Etchegary, H. (2014). Public attitudes toward genetic risk testing and its role in healthcare. Personalized Medicine, 11, 509–522.CrossRef

Goldsmith, L., Jackson, L., O’Connor, A., & Skirton, H. (2012). Direct-to-consumer genomic testing: Systematic review of the literature on user perspectives. European Journal of Human Genetics, 20, 811–816. doi:10.1038/ejhg.2012.18 PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

Gollust, S. E., Hull, S., & Wilfond, B. S. (2002). Limitations of direct-to-consumer advertising for clinical genetic testing. Journal of the American Medical Association, 288, 1762–1767. doi:10.1001/jama.288.14.1762 CrossRefPubMed

Green, C. A., & Pope, C. R. (1999). Gender, psychosocial factors and the use of medical services: A longitudinal analysis. Social Science & Medicine, 48, 1363–1372. doi:10.1016/S0277-9536(98)00440-7

Hampel, H., & Peltomaki, P. (2000). Hereditary colorectal cancer: Risk assessment and management. Clinical Genetics, 58, 89–97. doi:10.1034/j.1399-0004.2000.580201.x CrossRefPubMed

Harris, P. R., & Smith, V. (2005). When the risks are low: The impact of absolute and comparative information on disturbance and understanding in US and UK samples. Psychology & Health, 20, 319–330. doi:10.1080/08870440512331317689 CrossRef

Hock, K. T., Christensen, K. D., Yashar, B. M., Roberts, J. S., Gollust, S. E., & Uhlmann, W. R. (2011). Direct-to-consumer genetic testing: An assessment of genetic counselors’ knowledge and beliefs. Genetics in Medicine, 13, 325–332. doi:10.1097/GIM.0b013e3182011636 PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

Javitt, G. (2008). Direct-to-consumer genetic testing: Empowering or endangering the public? [Issue brief]. Washington: Genetics and Public Policy Center. Retrieved 28th October, 2014 from http://www.dnapolicy.org/images/issuebriefpdfs/2006_DTC_Issue_Brief.pdf

Kovess-Masfety, V., Boyd, A., van de Velde, S., de Graaf, R., Vilagut, G., Haro, J. M., & Alonso, J. (2014). Are there gender differences in service use for mental disorders across countries in the European Union? Results from the EU-World Mental Health survey. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 68, 649–656. doi:10.1136/jech-2013-202962 CrossRefPubMed

Lab Tests Online. (2014). Sample report. Retrieved 21st October, 2014 from http://labtestsonline.org/assets/static-pages/Sample.html

McBride, C. M., Alford, S. H., Reid, R. J., Larson, E. B., Baxevanis, A. D., & Brody, L. C. (2009). Characteristics of users of online personalized genomic risk assessments: Implications for physician-patient interactions. Genetics in Medicine, 11, 582–587. doi:10.1097/GIM.0b013e3181b22c3a PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

Mireskandari, S., Meiser, B., Sherman, K., Warner, B. J., Andrews, L., & Tucker, K. M. (2006). Evaluation of the needs and concerns of partners of women at high risk of developing breast/ovarian cancer. Psycho-oncology, 15, 96–108.CrossRefPubMed

National Health and Medical Research Council. (2012). Direct-to-consumer DNA genetic testing: An information resource for consumers. Retrieved 5th November, 2014 from https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/guidelines-publications/ps4

National Human Genome Research Institute. (2014). Regulation of genetic tests. http://www.genome.gov/10002335

National Institutes of Health. (2013). Confused by genetic tests? NIH’s new online tool may help. Retrieved 17th October, 2014 from http://www.nih.gov/news/health/feb2012/od-29.htm

Roberts, J. (2000). Anticipating response to predictive genetic testing for Alzheimer’s disease: A survey of first-degree relatives. The Gerontologist, 40, 43–52.CrossRefPubMed

Roberts, J. S., & Ostergren, J. (2013). Direct-to-consumer genetic testing and personal genomics services: A review of recent empirical studies. Current Genetic Medicine Reports, 1, 182–200.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

Senior, V., Marteau, T. M., & Weinman, J. (2000). Impact of genetic testing on causal models of heart disease and arthritis: An analogue study. Psychology & Health, 14, 1077–1088. doi:10.1080/08870440008407368 CrossRef

Shaw, B., & Bassi, K. (2001). Lay attitudes toward genetic testing for susceptibility to inherited diseases. Journal of Health Psychology, 6, 405–423.CrossRefPubMed

Shiloh, S., Ben-Sinai, R., & Keinan, G. (1999). Effects of controllability, predictability, and information-seeking style on interest in predictive genetic testing. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 1187.CrossRef

Su, P. (2013). Direct-to-consumer genetic testing: A comprehensive view. Yale J Biol Med, 86, 359–365.PubMedCentralPubMed

Sweeny, K., & Legg, A. M. (2011). Predictors of interest in direct-to-consumer genetic testing. Psychology & Health, 26, 1–14. doi:10.1080/08870446.2010.514607

The Cochrane Collaboration. (2010). Does communicating DNA‐based risk estimates motivate people to change their behaviour? Retrieved 3rd November, 2014 from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0014386/

The Genetics and Public Policy Center. (2012). GPPC releases updated list of DTC genetic testing companies. Retrieved 28th October, 2014 from http://www.dnapolicy.org/news.release.php?action=detail&pressrelease_id=145

Trent, R. (2014). Direct-to-consumer DNA testing and the general practitioner. Australian Family Physician, 43, 436–439.PubMed

Vassy, J. L., Donelan, K., Hivert, M. F., Green, R. C., & Grant, R. W. (2013). Genetic susceptibility testing for chronic disease and intention for behavior change in healthy young adults. Journal of Community Genetics, 4, 263–271.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

Werner, P., Goldstein, D., & Heinik, J. (2011). Development and validity of the Family Stigma in Alzheimer’s disease Scale (FS-ADS). Alzheimer Disease and Associated Disorders, 25, 42–48. doi:10.1097/WAD.0b013e3181f32594 CrossRefPubMed

Werner, P., & Heinik, J. (2008). Stigma by association and Alzheimer’s disease. Aging Mental Health, 12, 92–99.CrossRefPubMed

Wilde, A., Meiser, B., Mitchell, P. B., & Schofield, P. R. (2010). Public interest in predictive genetic testing, including direct-to-consumer testing, for susceptibility to major depression: Preliminary findings. European Journal of Human Genetics, 18, 47–51. doi:10.1038/ejhg.2009.138 PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

Wolff, K., Nordin, K., Brun, W., Berglund, G., & Kvale, G. (2011). Affective and cognitive attitudes, uncertainty avoidance and intention to obtain genetic testing: An extension of the theory of planned behaviour. Psychology & Health, 26, 1–13. doi:10.1080/08870441003763253

Titel: The effect of disease risk probability and disease type on interest in clinic-based versus direct-to-consumer genetic testing services
Auteurs: Kerry Sherman
Laura-Kate Shaw
Katrina Champion
Fernanda Caldeira
Margaret McCaskill
Publicatiedatum: 27-03-2015
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/s10865-015-9630-9

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 5/2015

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

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

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

Measuring health-related problem solving among African Americans with multiple chronic conditions: application of Rasch analysis

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

Social support buffering of the relation between low income and elevated blood pressure in at-risk African-American adults