Literature DB >> 10854459

Risk communication in genetic testing for cancer susceptibility.

R T Croyle1, C Lerman.   

Abstract

Risk communication is an integral part of genetic counseling and testing for cancer susceptibility. This paper reviews the emerging literature on this topic. Three relevant aspects of risk communication are addressed: communication of individual risk, communication of the risks inherent in genetic testing, and family communications related to risk. These studies suggest that (a) most individuals with some family history of cancer, including those at low to moderate risk, overestimate their personal cancer risk; (b) awareness of the risks of genetic testing is limited; (c) decision making about genetic testing is influenced strongly by exaggerated perceptions of personal cancer risk and less so by perceptions of the risks of genetic testing; (d) perceptions of personal risk of cancer are resistant to standard education and counseling approaches; (e) psychologic distress and coping processes influence the processing of risk information and subsequent decision making in genetic testing; and (f) family influences play an important role in risk awareness, genetic testing decisions, and outcomes. To study these issues further, new theoretical models and measures of risk perceptions need to be developed. Both observational and experimental methods should be used to examine both the content and process of risk communication in cancer genetic counseling and testing. Emotional, familial, and sociocultural influences on the risk communication process require special attention.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10854459     DOI: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.jncimonographs.a024210

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr        ISSN: 1052-6773


  52 in total

Review 1.  What are the chances? Evaluating risk and benefit information in consumer health materials.

Authors:  Jacquelyn Burkell
Journal:  J Med Libr Assoc       Date:  2004-04

2.  Implications of Internet availability of genomic information for public health practice.

Authors:  B W Hesse; N K Arora; M J Khoury
Journal:  Public Health Genomics       Date:  2012-04-04       Impact factor: 2.000

3.  Risky business: risk perception and the use of medical services among customers of DTC personal genetic testing.

Authors:  David J Kaufman; Juli M Bollinger; Rachel L Dvoskin; Joan A Scott
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2012-01-26       Impact factor: 2.537

4.  What do we tell the children? Contrasting the disclosure choices of two HD families regarding risk status and predictive genetic testing.

Authors:  Kathryn Holt
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2006-08       Impact factor: 2.537

5.  Perceived risk following melanoma genetic testing: a 2-year prospective study distinguishing subjective estimates from recall.

Authors:  Lisa G Aspinwall; Jennifer M Taber; Wendy Kohlmann; Samantha L Leaf; Sancy A Leachman
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2013-12-10       Impact factor: 2.537

6.  Communication and decision making in cancer care: setting research priorities for decision support/patients' decision aids.

Authors:  Amber E Barnato; Hilary A Llewellyn-Thomas; Ellen M Peters; Laura Siminoff; E Dale Collins; Michael J Barry
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2007-09-14       Impact factor: 2.583

7.  Perceived intrafamily melanoma risk communication.

Authors:  Lois J Loescher; Janice D Crist; Leilani A C L Siaki
Journal:  Cancer Nurs       Date:  2009 May-Jun       Impact factor: 2.592

8.  Women's satisfaction with genetic counseling for hereditary breast-ovarian cancer: psychological aspects.

Authors:  Kenneth P Tercyak; Tiffani A Demarco; Bryn D Mars; Beth N Peshkin
Journal:  Am J Med Genet A       Date:  2004-11-15       Impact factor: 2.802

Review 9.  Decision making about cancer screening: an assessment of the state of the science and a suggested research agenda from the ASPO Behavioral Oncology and Cancer Communication Special Interest Group.

Authors:  Marc T Kiviniemi; Jennifer L Hay; Aimee S James; Isaac M Lipkus; Helen I Meissner; Michael Stefanek; Jamie L Studts; John F P Bridges; David R Close; Deborah O Erwin; Resa M Jones; Karen Kaiser; Kathryn M Kash; Kimberly M Kelly; Simon J Craddock Lee; Jason Q Purnell; Laura A Siminoff; Susan T Vadaparampil; Catharine Wang
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2009-11       Impact factor: 4.254

10.  The impact of personalized risk feedback on Mexican Americans' perceived risk for heart disease and diabetes.

Authors:  Shelly R Hovick; Anna V Wilkinson; Sato Ashida; Hendrik D de Heer; Laura M Koehly
Journal:  Health Educ Res       Date:  2014-01-24
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.