PURPOSE: This article explores how a "neutral" genetics information leaflet influenced people's attitudes to be more positive toward predictive genetic testing. This is of concern, given the desire within clinical genetics and population based testing to provide information that informs choice without directing toward, or against, testing. METHOD: Four studies are reported. The first two investigated presentation (glossy and colored vs. black and white), and method of reading (read only vs. read followed by probing questions). The second two investigated content, using "think aloud," "card sort," and delayed recall tasks. RESULTS: Those receiving a glossy leaflet expressed more positive attitudes and more interest in undergoing testing than those receiving a black and white leaflet, and those who were asked questions about what they had read were more positive about genetic testing than those who only read the leaflet. Recall one week later varied from 72% to 28%, depending on type of information. Information that described the advantages of genetic testing or discussed genes and genetic testing in relation to disease were well recalled and rated positively. Attitudes toward information ranged from 100% positive (e.g., what diseases genetic tests are available for) to 0% positive (e.g., the meaning of a positive result). CONCLUSION: These results show that quite small changes within a leaflet can change attitudes toward genetic testing. This is of concern, given the association between attitudes toward a behavior and undergoing that behavior. The form, method of presentation, and content of genetic information leaflets should be evaluated for impact on attitude and decisions before they are used clinically.
PURPOSE: This article explores how a "neutral" genetics information leaflet influenced people's attitudes to be more positive toward predictive genetic testing. This is of concern, given the desire within clinical genetics and population based testing to provide information that informs choice without directing toward, or against, testing. METHOD: Four studies are reported. The first two investigated presentation (glossy and colored vs. black and white), and method of reading (read only vs. read followed by probing questions). The second two investigated content, using "think aloud," "card sort," and delayed recall tasks. RESULTS: Those receiving a glossy leaflet expressed more positive attitudes and more interest in undergoing testing than those receiving a black and white leaflet, and those who were asked questions about what they had read were more positive about genetic testing than those who only read the leaflet. Recall one week later varied from 72% to 28%, depending on type of information. Information that described the advantages of genetic testing or discussed genes and genetic testing in relation to disease were well recalled and rated positively. Attitudes toward information ranged from 100% positive (e.g., what diseases genetic tests are available for) to 0% positive (e.g., the meaning of a positive result). CONCLUSION: These results show that quite small changes within a leaflet can change attitudes toward genetic testing. This is of concern, given the association between attitudes toward a behavior and undergoing that behavior. The form, method of presentation, and content of genetic information leaflets should be evaluated for impact on attitude and decisions before they are used clinically.
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
Authors: Katherine W Saylor; Lynette Ekunwe; Donna Antoine-LaVigne; Deborah E Sellers; Sarah McGraw; Daniel Levy; Greta Lee Splansky; Steven Joffe Journal: J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics Date: 2019-05-08 Impact factor: 1.742
Authors: Hélène W P van den Nieuwenhoff; Ilse Mesters; Joyce J T M Nellissen; Anton F Stalenhoef; Nanne K de Vries Journal: J Genet Couns Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 2.537
Authors: Anjana Roy; Ibrahim Abubakar; Ann Chapman; Nick Andrews; Mike Pattinson; Marc Lipman; Laura C Rodrigues; Jose Figueroa; Surinder Tamne; Mike Catchpole Journal: PLoS One Date: 2011-06-17 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Stacy W Gray; Elyse R Park; Julie Najita; Yolanda Martins; Lara Traeger; Elizabeth Bair; Joshua Gagne; Judy Garber; Pasi A Jänne; Neal Lindeman; Carol Lowenstein; Nelly Oliver; Lynette Sholl; Eliezer M Van Allen; Nikhil Wagle; Sam Wood; Levi Garraway; Steven Joffe Journal: Genet Med Date: 2016-02-11 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Klára Bíró; Viktor Dombrádi; Zita Fekete; Gábor Bányai; Klára Boruzs; Attila Nagy; Róza Ádány Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2020-09-10 Impact factor: 3.295