Literature DB >> 18318647

Associations between anticipated reactions to genetic test results and interest in genetic testing: will self-selection reduce the potential for harm?

Saskia C Sanderson1, Jane Wardle.   

Abstract

The proliferation of genetic susceptibility tests for complex diseases away from clinic settings increases the potential for harm. This study assessed whether people are likely to self-select themselves into or out of genetic testing depending on whether they believe they could cope with the results. Associations between anticipated reactions to adverse genetic test results and interest in taking genetic tests for cancer and heart disease were examined in a community sample of English adults (n = 1,024). Interest in genetic testing overall was 78% for cancer risk and 80% for heart disease risk. As predicted, there were differences by anticipated reactions. People who anticipated regret about having taken a genetic test for cancer risk expressed lower interest than those who did not anticipate regret (46% vs. 89%), and people who anticipated being glad to know of increased risk status (i.e., reduced uncertainty) were more interested than those who did not look forward to reduced uncertainty (91% vs. 22%). Patterns were similar for heart disease ("regret" 66% vs. 87%; "reduced uncertainty" 87% vs. 38%). The potential for harm from future genetic susceptibility tests may be less than feared if people who anticipate adverse reactions self-select themselves out of testing. However, given that a significant proportion of people who anticipated adverse reactions also expressed interest in testing, there is still a concern about safety. It remains to be seen whether the same patterns emerge in studies that actually offer genetic tests for common gene variants in community settings.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18318647     DOI: 10.1089/gte.2007.0047

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Genet Test        ISSN: 1090-6576


  16 in total

1.  Practical considerations to guide development of access controls and decision support for genetic information in electronic medical records.

Authors:  Diana C Darcy; Eleanor T Lewis; Kelly E Ormond; David J Clark; Jodie A Trafton
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2011-11-02       Impact factor: 2.655

2.  Responses to online GSTM1 genetic test results among smokers related to patients with lung cancer: a pilot study.

Authors:  Saskia C Sanderson; Suzanne C O'Neill; Della Brown White; Gerold Bepler; Lori Bastian; Isaac M Lipkus; Colleen M McBride
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2009-06-30       Impact factor: 4.254

3.  Parents' attitudes toward pediatric genetic testing for common disease risk.

Authors:  Kenneth P Tercyak; Sharon Hensley Alford; Karen M Emmons; Isaac M Lipkus; Benjamin S Wilfond; Colleen M McBride
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  2011-04-18       Impact factor: 7.124

4.  Willingness to participate in genomics research and desire for personal results among underrepresented minority patients: a structured interview study.

Authors:  Saskia C Sanderson; Michael A Diefenbach; Randi Zinberg; Carol R Horowitz; Margaret Smirnoff; Micol Zweig; Samantha Streicher; Ethylin Wang Jabs; Lynne D Richardson
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2013-06-22

Review 5.  Ethics of genetic and biomarker test disclosures in neurodegenerative disease prevention trials.

Authors:  Scott Y H Kim; Jason Karlawish; Benjamin E Berkman
Journal:  Neurology       Date:  2015-03-11       Impact factor: 9.910

6.  Young smokers' interpretations of the estimated lung cancer risk associated with a common genetic variant of low penetrance.

Authors:  S C Sanderson; C M McBride; S C O'Neill; S Docherty; J Shepperd; I M Lipkus
Journal:  Public Health Genomics       Date:  2014-02-19       Impact factor: 2.000

7.  What can interest tell us about uptake of genetic testing? Intention and behavior amongst smokers related to patients with lung cancer.

Authors:  S C Sanderson; S C O'Neill; L A Bastian; G Bepler; C M McBride
Journal:  Public Health Genomics       Date:  2009-06-29       Impact factor: 2.000

8.  Cancer Patient Experience of Uncertainty While Waiting for Genome Sequencing Results.

Authors:  Nicci Bartley; Christine E Napier; Zoe Butt; Timothy E Schlub; Megan C Best; Barbara B Biesecker; Mandy L Ballinger; Phyllis Butow
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2021-04-22

9.  Survey of US public attitudes toward pharmacogenetic testing.

Authors:  S B Haga; J M O'Daniel; G M Tindall; I R Lipkus; R Agans
Journal:  Pharmacogenomics J       Date:  2011-02-15       Impact factor: 3.550

10.  Responses to FTO genetic test feedback for obesity in a sample of overweight adults: a qualitative analysis.

Authors:  S F Meisel; J Wardle
Journal:  Genes Nutr       Date:  2013-12-01       Impact factor: 5.523

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.