Literature DB >> 17103321

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

Nadine A Kasparian1, Bettina Meiser, Phyllis N Butow, R F Soames Job, Graham J Mann.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The psychological consequences of genetic testing for mutations among individuals at increased risk of developing melanoma remain unexamined. The present study aimed to explore anticipated emotional, behavioral, cognitive, and familial responses to hypothetical genetic testing for melanoma susceptibility.
METHODS: Forty semi-structured interviews were undertaken with affected (n=20) and unaffected (n=20) individuals at either high or average risk of developing melanoma due to family history.
RESULTS: In-depth thematic analysis revealed that, in response to being identified as a mutation carrier, most participants with a family history anticipated calmly accepting their increased risk; either increasing precaution adoption or maintaining already vigilant behavioral practices; perceiving such information as important and valuable; and communicating genetic test results to family members, despite the acknowledgement of potential difficulties. In response to being identified as a non-carrier, the majority of participants expected to feel relieved; to maintain current precautionary health practices; to still perceive themselves at some risk of developing melanoma; and to be wary of the potential negative behavioral consequences of disclosing such information to family members. Women appeared more likely than men to acknowledge the potential for depression and worry following genetic testing. In contrast, more males than females expected to carry a gene mutation, and viewed their current preventive practices as optimum.
CONCLUSION: Genetic testing for melanoma risk is likely to elicit a complex array of emotional, behavioral, cognitive, and familial responses for both testees and their family members, and these responses are likely to bear subtle differences for males and females.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 17103321     DOI: 10.1007/s10897-006-9038-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Genet Couns        ISSN: 1059-7700            Impact factor:   2.537


  53 in total

1.  Attitudes towards termination of pregnancy in subjects who underwent presymptomatic testing for the BRCA1/BRCA2 gene mutation in The Netherlands.

Authors:  L N Lodder; P G Frets; R W Trijsburg; E J Meijers-Heijboer; J G Klijn; M F Niermeijer
Journal:  J Med Genet       Date:  2000-11       Impact factor: 6.318

2.  Facilitating family communication about predictive genetic testing: probands' perceptions.

Authors:  Clara L Gaff; Veronica Collins; Tiffany Symes; Jane Halliday
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 2.537

3.  Genetic testing for a BRCA1 mutation: prophylactic surgery and screening behavior in women 2 years post testing.

Authors:  Jeffrey R Botkin; Ken R Smith; Robert T Croyle; Bonnie J Baty; Jean E Wylie; Debra Dutson; Anna Chan; Heidi A Hamann; Caryn Lerman; Jamie McDonald; Vickie Venne; John H Ward; Elaine Lyon
Journal:  Am J Med Genet A       Date:  2003-04-30       Impact factor: 2.802

4.  Psychosocial factors in sunbathing and sunscreen use.

Authors:  B Keesling; H S Friedman
Journal:  Health Psychol       Date:  1987       Impact factor: 4.267

5.  The psychological component of infertility.

Authors:  P P Mahlstedt
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  1985-03       Impact factor: 7.329

6.  Summer sun exposure: knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors of Midwest adolescents.

Authors:  J K Robinson; A W Rademaker; J A Sylvester; B Cook
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  1997 May-Jun       Impact factor: 4.018

7.  Impact of BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation testing on psychologic distress in a clinic-based sample.

Authors:  Marc D Schwartz; Beth N Peshkin; Chanita Hughes; David Main; Claudine Isaacs; Caryn Lerman
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2002-01-15       Impact factor: 44.544

8.  Prophylactic surgery decisions and surveillance practices one year following BRCA1/2 testing.

Authors:  C Lerman; C Hughes; R T Croyle; D Main; C Durham; C Snyder; A Bonney; J F Lynch; S A Narod; H T Lynch
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2000-07       Impact factor: 4.018

9.  Illness-related distress: does it mean the same for men and women? Gender aspects in cancer patients' distress and adjustment.

Authors:  M Keller; G Henrich
Journal:  Acta Oncol       Date:  1999       Impact factor: 4.089

10.  BRCA1 testing with definitive results: a prospective study of psychological distress in a large clinic-based sample.

Authors:  Jon G Reichelt; Ketil Heimdal; Pål Møller; Alv A Dahl
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 2.375

View more
  8 in total

1.  Timing and context: important considerations in the return of genetic results to research participants.

Authors:  Kate A McBride; Nina Hallowell; Martin H N Tattersall; Judy Kirk; Mandy L Ballinger; David M Thomas; Gillian Mitchell; Mary-Anne Young
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2015-05-26

2.  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

3.  "To perpetuate blindness!": attitudes of UK patients with inherited retinal disease towards genetic testing.

Authors:  Barbara Potrata; Martin McKibbin; Jennifer Nw Lim; Jenny Hewison
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2013-12-24

Review 4.  Malignant melanoma in the 21st century: the emerging molecular landscape.

Authors:  Aleksandar Sekulic; Paul Haluska; Arlo J Miller; Josep Genebriera De Lamo; Samuel Ejadi; Jose S Pulido; Diva R Salomao; Erik C Thorland; Richard G Vile; David L Swanson; Barbara A Pockaj; Susan D Laman; Mark R Pittelkow; Svetomir N Markovic
Journal:  Mayo Clin Proc       Date:  2008-07       Impact factor: 7.616

5.  Unaffected family members report improvements in daily routine sun protection 2 years following melanoma genetic testing.

Authors:  Lisa G Aspinwall; Jennifer M Taber; Wendy Kohlmann; Samantha L Leaf; Sancy A Leachman
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2014-04-24       Impact factor: 8.822

6.  Rheumatoid arthritis patient perceptions on the value of predictive testing for treatments: a qualitative study.

Authors:  Kanta Kumar; Sarah Peters; Anne Barton
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2016-11-08       Impact factor: 2.362

7.  Understanding of and attitudes to genetic testing for inherited retinal disease: a patient perspective.

Authors:  T A Willis; B Potrata; M Ahmed; J Hewison; R Gale; L Downey; M McKibbin
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  2013-06-28       Impact factor: 4.638

8.  Willingness to pay for genetic testing for inherited retinal disease.

Authors:  Sandy Tubeuf; Thomas A Willis; Barbara Potrata; Hilary Grant; Matthew J Allsop; Mushtaq Ahmed; Jenny Hewison; Martin McKibbin
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2014-06-11       Impact factor: 4.246

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.