Saskia C Sanderson1, Jane Wardle, Martin J Jarvis, Steve E Humphries. 1. Cancer Research UK Health Behaviour Unit, Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, UK. s.sanderson@public-health.ucl.ac.uk
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Given the current concerns about the clinical validity of commercially marketed genetic tests for multifactorial diseases, there is a surprising dearth of information about what public demand might be for genetic tests for any complex diseases other than cancer. The aim of this study was to examine interest in genetic testing for the most common multifactorial disease, heart disease, and to compare it with interest in testing for cancer in a general population sample that had not received detailed information about genetic tests. METHODS: Interest in genetic testing for heart disease susceptibility was surveyed and compared to interest in genetic testing for cancer susceptibility among a nationally representative sample of 1,960 British adults as part of the Office for National Statistics Omnibus survey. RESULTS: Sixty-nine percent of respondents expressed interest in being tested for genetic susceptibility to heart disease. Men, people aged 45-60 years, those with less education, and those with a family history were most interested in genetic testing for heart disease. Sixty-four percent of respondents expressed interest in genetic testing for susceptibility to cancer, and gender, age, and education, but not family history, were associated with interest. CONCLUSIONS: Interest in genetic testing for susceptibility to both heart disease and cancer was high, with the most educated individuals being the least interested in testing. Although the shift toward the 'expert patient' is actively encouraged and consistent with today's health policies, there is considerable and justifiable concern about some of the genetic tests for multifactorial diseases that are currently being marketed directly to the public. The high level of initial interest in the general public found in this study supports the need for a public education program around genetic testing for multifactorial diseases.
BACKGROUND: Given the current concerns about the clinical validity of commercially marketed genetic tests for multifactorial diseases, there is a surprising dearth of information about what public demand might be for genetic tests for any complex diseases other than cancer. The aim of this study was to examine interest in genetic testing for the most common multifactorial disease, heart disease, and to compare it with interest in testing for cancer in a general population sample that had not received detailed information about genetic tests. METHODS: Interest in genetic testing for heart disease susceptibility was surveyed and compared to interest in genetic testing for cancer susceptibility among a nationally representative sample of 1,960 British adults as part of the Office for National Statistics Omnibus survey. RESULTS: Sixty-nine percent of respondents expressed interest in being tested for genetic susceptibility to heart disease. Men, people aged 45-60 years, those with less education, and those with a family history were most interested in genetic testing for heart disease. Sixty-four percent of respondents expressed interest in genetic testing for susceptibility to cancer, and gender, age, and education, but not family history, were associated with interest. CONCLUSIONS: Interest in genetic testing for susceptibility to both heart disease and cancer was high, with the most educated individuals being the least interested in testing. Although the shift toward the 'expert patient' is actively encouraged and consistent with today's health policies, there is considerable and justifiable concern about some of the genetic tests for multifactorial diseases that are currently being marketed directly to the public. The high level of initial interest in the general public found in this study supports the need for a public education program around genetic testing for multifactorial diseases.
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
Authors: Lidewij Henneman; Eric Vermeulen; Carla G van El; Liesbeth Claassen; Danielle R M Timmermans; Martina C Cornel Journal: Eur J Hum Genet Date: 2012-12-19 Impact factor: 4.246
Authors: Stacy W Gray; Katherine Hicks-Courant; Christopher S Lathan; Levi Garraway; Elyse R Park; Jane C Weeks Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2012-08-07 Impact factor: 3.840