Literature DB >> 12784302

Understanding why negative genetic test results sometimes fail to reassure.

Susan Michie1, Jonathan A Smith, Victoria Senior, Theresa M Marteau.   

Abstract

A proportion of those receiving negative results following predictive genetic testing desire future bowel screening. This is despite a negative result meaning a general population risk of 1:7500 and despite bowel screening being experienced as aversive and clinically unnecessary. This study aimed to investigate perceptions of risk, illness, and tests amongst those receiving negative results following predictive genetic testing. Interviews with nine people receiving negative genetic test results for familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) were analyzed using the qualitative method, interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA). Those not reassured by negative genetic test results perceived a continuing risk to themselves and to their children. Two sets of perceptions emerged that might explain this: (1). perceptions of the genetic basis of the condition (FAP). Although the condition was perceived to be genetic, genetic status was seen as transient, so a result today could not predict the future. The condition was also seen as caused by factors other than genes, so information about only one risk factor could not be reassuring. (2). Perceptions of the genetic test. There was a lack of conviction in the ability of the genetic test, based on a blood sample, to predict a disease located in the bowel. These results suggest that some individuals receiving negative test results are not reassured because of their representations of the cause of their condition and the nature of the tests they undergo. It may be that eliciting and, when appropriate, changing people's representations prior to testing may enable those receiving negative results to be more reassured about their residual risk. Copyright 2003 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12784302     DOI: 10.1002/ajmg.a.20200

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Med Genet A        ISSN: 1552-4825            Impact factor:   2.802


  22 in total

1.  The development of a methodology for examining the process of family communication of genetic test results.

Authors:  Jonathan A Smith; Caroline Dancyger; Melissa Wallace; Chris Jacobs; Susan Michie
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2010-09-11       Impact factor: 2.537

Review 2.  Genetic screening and occupational and environmental exposures.

Authors:  P Vineis; H Ahsan; M Parker
Journal:  Occup Environ Med       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 4.402

Review 3.  Illness representations, self-regulation, and genetic counseling: a theoretical review.

Authors:  Shoshana Shiloh
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2006-10       Impact factor: 2.537

Review 4.  Genetic testing and common disorders in a public health framework: how to assess relevance and possibilities. Background Document to the ESHG recommendations on genetic testing and common disorders.

Authors:  Frauke Becker; Carla G van El; Dolores Ibarreta; Eleni Zika; Stuart Hogarth; Pascal Borry; Anne Cambon-Thomsen; Jean Jacques Cassiman; Gerry Evers-Kiebooms; Shirley Hodgson; A Cécile J W Janssens; Helena Kaariainen; Michael Krawczak; Ulf Kristoffersson; Jan Lubinski; Christine Patch; Victor B Penchaszadeh; Andrew Read; Wolf Rogowski; Jorge Sequeiros; Lisbeth Tranebjaerg; Irene M van Langen; Helen Wallace; Ron Zimmern; Jörg Schmidtke; Martina C Cornel
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2011-04       Impact factor: 4.246

5.  Value of Genetic Testing for Hereditary Colorectal Cancer in a Probability-Based US Online Sample.

Authors:  Sara J Knight; Ateesha F Mohamed; Deborah A Marshall; Uri Ladabaum; Kathryn A Phillips; Judith M E Walsh
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2015-01-14       Impact factor: 2.583

6.  "I have always believed I was at high risk..." The role of expectation in emotional responses to the receipt of an average, moderate or high cancer genetic risk assessment result: a thematic analysis of free-text questionnaire comments.

Authors:  J Hilgart; C Phelps; P Bennett; K Hood; K Brain; A Murray
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 2.375

7.  Reporting genetic results in research studies: summary and recommendations of an NHLBI working group.

Authors:  Ebony B Bookman; Aleisha A Langehorne; John H Eckfeldt; Kathleen C Glass; Gail P Jarvik; Michael Klag; Greg Koski; Arno Motulsky; Benjamin Wilfond; Teri A Manolio; Richard R Fabsitz; Russell V Luepker
Journal:  Am J Med Genet A       Date:  2006-05-15       Impact factor: 2.802

8.  Long-term psychosocial and behavioral adjustment in individuals receiving genetic test results in Lynch syndrome.

Authors:  M J Esplen; J Wong; M Aronson; K Butler; H Rothenmund; K Semotiuk; L Madlensky; C Way; E Dicks; J Green; S Gallinger
Journal:  Clin Genet       Date:  2014-10-28       Impact factor: 4.438

9.  The personal experience of parenting a child with juvenile Huntington's disease: perceptions across Europe.

Authors:  Virginia Eatough; Helen Santini; Christine Eiser; Marie-Louise Goller; Wioletta Krysa; 'Annunziata' de Nicola; Matteo Paduanello; Martina Petrollini; Maria Rakowicz; Ferdinando Squitieri; Aad Tibben; Katie Lee Weille; Bernhard Landwehrmeyer; Oliver Quarrell; Jonathan A Smith
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2013-02-27       Impact factor: 4.246

Review 10.  Genetics: breast cancer as an exemplar.

Authors:  Rebekah Hamilton
Journal:  Nurs Clin North Am       Date:  2009-09       Impact factor: 1.208

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.