BACKGROUND:Direct-to-consumer (DTC) BRCA testing may expand access to genetic testing and enhance cancer prevention efforts. It is not known, however, if current DTC websites provide adequate risk information for informed medical decision making. METHODS: A total of 284 women with a personal or family history of breast/ovarian cancer were randomly assigned to view a "mock" DTC commercial website [control condition (CC); n = 93] or the same "mock" website that included information on the potential risks of obtaining genetic testing online. Risk information was framed two ways: risk information attributed to expert sources (ES; n = 98) and unattributed risk information (URI; n = 93). Participants completed an online survey. End points were intentions to get BRCA testing, testing site preference, and beliefs about DTC BRCA testing. RESULTS:The sample was 82% white, had a mean age of 39 years (range, 18-70 years) and had a mean education of 3 years of college. Women exposed to risk information had lower intentions to get BRCA testing than women in the CC [adjusted odds ratio (OR), 0.48; 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.26-0.87; P = 0.016], and less positive beliefs about online BRCA testing (adjusted OR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.27-0.86; P = 0.014). Women in the ES condition were more likely to prefer clinic-based testing than were women in the CC (adjusted OR, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.07-3.90; P = 0.030). CONCLUSION: Exposing women to information on the potential risks of online BRCA testing altered their intentions, beliefs, and preferences for BRCA testing. Policy makers may want to consider the content and framing of risk information on DTC websites as they formulate regulation for this rapidly growing industry.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Direct-to-consumer (DTC) BRCA testing may expand access to genetic testing and enhance cancer prevention efforts. It is not known, however, if current DTC websites provide adequate risk information for informed medical decision making. METHODS: A total of 284 women with a personal or family history of breast/ovarian cancer were randomly assigned to view a "mock" DTC commercial website [control condition (CC); n = 93] or the same "mock" website that included information on the potential risks of obtaining genetic testing online. Risk information was framed two ways: risk information attributed to expert sources (ES; n = 98) and unattributed risk information (URI; n = 93). Participants completed an online survey. End points were intentions to get BRCA testing, testing site preference, and beliefs about DTC BRCA testing. RESULTS: The sample was 82% white, had a mean age of 39 years (range, 18-70 years) and had a mean education of 3 years of college. Women exposed to risk information had lower intentions to get BRCA testing than women in the CC [adjusted odds ratio (OR), 0.48; 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.26-0.87; P = 0.016], and less positive beliefs about online BRCA testing (adjusted OR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.27-0.86; P = 0.014). Women in the ES condition were more likely to prefer clinic-based testing than were women in the CC (adjusted OR, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.07-3.90; P = 0.030). CONCLUSION: Exposing women to information on the potential risks of online BRCA testing altered their intentions, beliefs, and preferences for BRCA testing. Policy makers may want to consider the content and framing of risk information on DTC websites as they formulate regulation for this rapidly growing industry.
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
Authors: Noah D Kauff; Jaya M Satagopan; Mark E Robson; Lauren Scheuer; Martee Hensley; Clifford A Hudis; Nathan A Ellis; Jeff Boyd; Patrick I Borgen; Richard R Barakat; Larry Norton; Mercedes Castiel; Khedoudja Nafa; Kenneth Offit Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-05-20 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Andrea Eisen; Jan Lubinski; Jan Klijn; Pal Moller; Henry T Lynch; Kenneth Offit; Barbara Weber; Tim Rebbeck; Susan L Neuhausen; Parviz Ghadirian; William D Foulkes; Ruth Gershoni-Baruch; Eitan Friedman; Gadi Rennert; Teresa Wagner; Claudine Isaacs; Charmaine Kim-Sing; Peter Ainsworth; Ping Sun; Steven A Narod Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-10-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Masahito Jimbo; Gurpreet K Rana; Sarah Hawley; Margaret Holmes-Rovner; Karen Kelly-Blake; Donald E Nease; Mack T Ruffin Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2013-03-15 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Deanna Alexis Carere; Mick P Couper; Scott D Crawford; Sarah S Kalia; Jake R Duggan; Tanya A Moreno; Joanna L Mountain; J Scott Roberts; Robert C Green Journal: Genome Med Date: 2014-12-03 Impact factor: 11.117