Literature DB >> 17328098

The common sense model of self-regulation and psychological adjustment to predictive genetic testing: a prospective study.

Iris van Oostrom1, Hanne Meijers-Heijboer, Hugo J Duivenvoorden, Annette H J T Bröcker-Vriends, Christi J van Asperen, Rolf H Sijmons, Caroline Seynaeve, Arthur R Van Gool, Jan G M Klijn, Aad Tibben.   

Abstract

This prospective study explored the contribution of illness representations and coping to cancer-related distress in unaffected individuals undergoing predictive genetic testing for an identified mutation in BRCA1/2 (BReast CAncer) or an HNPCC (Hereditary Nonpolyposis Colorectal Cancer)-related gene, based on the common sense model of self-regulation. Coping with hereditary cancer (UCL), illness representations (IPQ-R) and risk perception were assessed in 235 unaffected applicants for genetic testing before test result disclosure. Hereditary cancer distress (IES) and cancer worry (CWS) were assessed before, 2 weeks after and 6 months after result disclosure. Timeline (r = 0.30), consequences (r = 0.25), illness coherence (r = 0.21) and risk perception (r = 0.20) were significantly correlated to passive coping. Passive coping predicted hereditary cancer distress and cancer worry from pre-test (beta = 0.46 and 0.42, respectively) up to 6 months after result disclosure (beta = 0.32 and 0.19, respectively). Illness coherence predicted hereditary cancer distress up to 6 months after result disclosure (beta = 0.24), too. The self-regulatory model may be useful to predict the cognitive and emotional reactions to genetic cancer susceptibility testing. Identifying unhelpful representations and cognitive restructuring may be appropriate interventions to help distressed individuals undergoing genetic susceptibility testing for a BRCA1/2 or a HNPCC-related mutation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17328098     DOI: 10.1002/pon.1178

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


  16 in total

Review 1.  The Life Course Perspective: a Guide for Genetic Counselors.

Authors:  Rebekah J Hamilton; Nancy A Innella; Dawn T Bounds
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2015-08-27       Impact factor: 2.537

2.  Genetic test reporting enhances understanding of risk information and acceptance of prevention recommendations compared to family history-based counseling alone.

Authors:  Jennifer M Taber; Lisa G Aspinwall; Tammy K Stump; Wendy Kohlmann; Marjan Champine; Sancy A Leachman
Journal:  J Behav Med       Date:  2015-07-16

3.  The association of beliefs about heredity with preventive and interpersonal behaviors in communities affected by podoconiosis in rural Ethiopia.

Authors:  Desta Ayode; Colleen M McBride; Hendrik de Heer; Emi Watanabe; Tsega Gebreyesus; Getnet Tadele; Abebayehu Tora; Gail Davey
Journal:  Am J Trop Med Hyg       Date:  2012-07-23       Impact factor: 2.345

4.  Lynch Syndrome Limbo: Patient Understanding of Variants of Uncertain Significance.

Authors:  Ilana Solomon; Elizabeth Harrington; Gillian Hooker; Lori Erby; Jennifer Axilbund; Heather Hampel; Kara Semotiuk; Amie Blanco; William M P Klein; Francis Giardiello; Lori Leonard
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2017-01-26       Impact factor: 2.537

5.  Intrusion and avoidance in subjects undergoing genetic investigation and counseling for hereditary cancer.

Authors:  Cathrine Bjorvatn; Geir Egil Eide; Berit R Hanestad; Anniken Hamang; Odd E Havik
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2009-02-18       Impact factor: 3.603

6.  Preferences for multigene panel testing for hereditary breast cancer risk among ethnically diverse BRCA-uninformative families.

Authors:  Belinda Vicuña; Harold D Delaney; Kristina G Flores; Lori Ballinger; Melanie Royce; Zoneddy Dayao; Tuya Pal; Anita Y Kinney
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2017-10-02

7.  Men in the women's world of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer--a systematic review.

Authors:  Nina Strømsvik; Målfrid Råheim; Nina Oyen; Eva Gjengedal
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2009-01-23       Impact factor: 2.375

8.  Will knowledge of gene-based colorectal cancer disease risk influence quality of life and screening behavior? Findings from a population-based study.

Authors:  Scott Ramsey; David Blough; Cara McDermott; Lauren Clarke; Robin Bennett; Wylie Burke; Polly Newcomb
Journal:  Public Health Genomics       Date:  2009-03-02       Impact factor: 2.000

9.  Engagement and communication among participants in the ClinSeq Genomic Sequencing Study.

Authors:  Gillian W Hooker; Kendall L Umstead; Katie L Lewis; Laura K Koehly; Leslie G Biesecker; Barbara B Biesecker
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2016-10-20       Impact factor: 8.822

10.  Shortened time interval between colorectal cancer diagnosis and risk testing for hereditary colorectal cancer is not related to higher psychological distress.

Authors:  K M Landsbergen; J B Prins; H G Brunner; N Hoogerbrugge
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 2.375

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.