Literature DB >> 15744786

Hereditary melanoma and predictive genetic testing: why not?

S R Riedijk1, F A de Snoo, S van Dijk, W Bergman, A van Haeringen, S Silberg, T M T van Elderen, A Tibben.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Since p16-Leiden presymptomatic testing for hereditary melanoma has become available in the Netherlands, the benefits and risks of offering such testing are evaluated. The current paper investigated why the non-participants were reluctant to participate in genetic testing.
METHODS: Sixty six eligible individuals, who were knowledgeable about the test but had not participated in genetic testing by January 2003, completed a self-report questionnaire assessing motivation, anxiety, family dynamics, risk knowledge and causal attributions.
RESULTS: Non-participants reported anxiety levels below clinical significance. A principal components analysis on reasons for non-participation distinguished two underlying motives: emotional and rational motivation. Rational motivation for non-participation was associated with more accurate risk knowledge, the inclination to preselect mutation carriers within the family and lower scores on anxiety. Emotional motivation for non-participation was associated with disease misperceptions, hesitation to communicate unfavourable test results within the family and higher scores on anxiety.
CONCLUSION: Rational and emotional motivation for non-participation in the genetic test for hereditary melanoma was found. Emotionally motivated individuals may be reluctant to disseminate genetic risk information. Rationally motivated individuals were better informed than emotionally motivated individuals. It is suggested that a leaflet is added to the invitation letter to enhance informed decision-making about genetic testing.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15744786     DOI: 10.1002/pon.901

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychooncology        ISSN: 1057-9249            Impact factor:   3.894


  6 in total

1.  Underutilization of genetics services for autism: the importance of parental awareness and provider recommendation.

Authors:  Kimberly Vande Wydeven; Andrea Kwan; Antonio Y Hardan; Jonathan A Bernstein
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2012-03-14       Impact factor: 2.537

2.  Better the devil you know? High-risk individuals' anticipated psychological responses to genetic testing for melanoma susceptibility.

Authors:  Nadine A Kasparian; Bettina Meiser; Phyllis N Butow; R F Soames Job; Graham J Mann
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 2.537

3.  Distress and psychosocial needs of a heterogeneous high risk familial cancer population.

Authors:  Tara E Power; John W Robinson; Peter Bridge; Francois P Bernier; Dawna M Gilchrist
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2011-04-21       Impact factor: 2.537

4.  A family genetic risk communication framework: guiding tool development in genetics health services.

Authors:  Miriam E Wiens; Brenda J Wilson; Christina Honeywell; Holly Etchegary
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2013-01-15

5.  Genetic testing for Lynch syndrome: family communication and motivation.

Authors:  Celine H M Leenen; Mariska den Heijer; Conny van der Meer; Ernst J Kuipers; Monique E van Leerdam; Anja Wagner
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2016-01       Impact factor: 2.375

6.  Management of melanoma families.

Authors:  Wilma Bergman; Nelleke A Gruis
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2010-04-16       Impact factor: 6.639

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.