Literature DB >> 12407705

Gender differences in psychosocial reactions to cystic fibrosis carrier testing.

Jamie E Newman1, James R Sorenson, Brenda M DeVellis, Brian Cheuvront.   

Abstract

Gender differences involving genetic testing have become a topic of research as feminist critiques assert that women may be affected differently, and possibly more significantly, than men by genetic carrier testing information. It is possible that men and women differ in their reactions to learning whether they are or are not a carrier of a specific mutation. It is also possible that men and women may differ in their reactions to different methods of genetic testing. Data on gender differences in reactions to cystic fibrosis (CF) carrier testing in a high-risk population and to gender differences in reactions to home-based as opposed to clinic-based testing are reported. This analysis suggests that at least for CF carrier testing, men and women do differ in terms of their risk perceptions, negative psychological affect, perceptions about themselves, and the convenience of testing. However, there was only one difference between men's and women's reactions to the method of testing. A better understanding of gender differences in response to carrier testing, as well as to interactions between gender and methods of genetic testing, may inform better approaches to carrier testing and to considering alternative methods of such testing.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12407705     DOI: 10.1002/ajmg.10736

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Med Genet        ISSN: 0148-7299


  7 in total

Review 1.  Can we make assumptions about the psychosocial impact of living as a carrier, based on studies assessing the effects of carrier testing?

Authors:  Celine Lewis; Heather Skirton; Ray Jones
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2010-09-29       Impact factor: 2.537

Review 2.  How risk is perceived, constructed and interpreted by clients in clinical genetics, and the effects on decision making: systematic review.

Authors:  Stephanie Sivell; Glyn Elwyn; Clara L Gaff; Angus J Clarke; Rachel Iredale; Chris Shaw; Joanna Dundon; Hazel Thornton; Adrian Edwards
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2007-10-30       Impact factor: 2.537

3.  Preconceptional ancestry-based carrier couple screening for cystic fibrosis and haemoglobinopathies: what determines the intention to participate or not and actual participation?

Authors:  Phillis Lakeman; Anne Marie Catharina Plass; Lidewij Henneman; Pieter Dirk Bezemer; Martina Cornelia Cornel; Leo Pieter ten Kate
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2009-02-18       Impact factor: 4.246

4.  Comparing test-specific distress of susceptibility versus deterministic genetic testing for Alzheimer's disease.

Authors:  Michael R Cassidy; J Scott Roberts; Thomas D Bird; Ellen J Steinbart; L Adrienne Cupples; Clara A Chen; Erin Linnenbringer; Robert C Green
Journal:  Alzheimers Dement       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 21.566

5.  Pregnancy as foreground in cystic fibrosis carrier testing decisions in primary care.

Authors:  Kathleen J H Sparbel; Janet K Williams
Journal:  Genet Test Mol Biomarkers       Date:  2009-02

6.  Communicating the diagnosis of Klinefelter syndrome to children and adolescents: when, how, and who?

Authors:  L Aliberti; I Gagliardi; S Bigoni; S Lupo; S Caracciolo; A Ferlini; A M Isidori; M C Zatelli; M R Ambrosio
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2022-03-05

7.  Consanguineous marriage and reproductive risk: attitudes and understanding of ethnic groups practising consanguinity in Western society.

Authors:  Marieke E Teeuw; Ghariba Loukili; Edien Ac Bartels; Leo P ten Kate; Martina C Cornel; Lidewij Henneman
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2013-08-07       Impact factor: 4.246

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.