Literature DB >> 19553879

Psychosocial aspects of genetic testing.

Linda D Cameron1, Cecile Muller.   

Abstract

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: With rapid advances in genetic testing for disease susceptibility, behavioral medicine faces significant challenges in identifying likely patterns of use, how individuals interpret test results, and psychosocial and health impacts of testing. We review recent research on these psychosocial aspects of genetic testing for disease risk. RECENT
FINDINGS: Individuals exhibit limited sensitivity in their perceptions of genetic risk information, and mental representations of disease risk appear to guide testing perceptions and behavioral responses. Motivations to undergo testing are complex, and efforts to develop decision aids are underway. Findings on psychological and behavioral impacts of genetic testing vary markedly, with some evidence of minimal or positive effects and other evidence indicating negative consequences that may be undetectable using common measures of general well being. Recent evidence suggests that genetic risk information can motivate health behavior change. Research demonstrates wide-ranging influences of testing on family dynamics, and use of genetic testing with children is of increasing concern.
SUMMARY: More research is needed to determine how to structure health communications and counseling to motivate informed use, promote positive responses, and optimize behavior change. Given the ramifications of genetic information for families, personalized genomics will demand a shift toward a family-based healthcare model.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19553879     DOI: 10.1097/YCO.0b013e3283252d80

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Curr Opin Psychiatry        ISSN: 0951-7367            Impact factor:   4.741


  22 in total

1.  Illness perceptions, risk perception and worry in SDH mutation carriers.

Authors:  L T van Hulsteijn; A A Kaptein; A Louisse; N R Biermasz; J W A Smit; E P M Corssmit
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2014-03       Impact factor: 2.375

2.  Beliefs about genetic influences on eating behaviors: Characteristics and associations with weight management confidence.

Authors:  Susan Persky; Sofia Bouhlal; Megan R Goldring; Colleen M McBride
Journal:  Eat Behav       Date:  2017-02-09

3.  Risk for Patient Harm in Canadian Genetic Counseling Practice: It's Time to Consider Regulation.

Authors:  Andrea L Shugar; Nada Quercia; Christopher Trevors; Marina M Rabideau; Sohnee Ahmed
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2016-06-07       Impact factor: 2.537

4.  Perceived ambiguity as a barrier to intentions to learn genome sequencing results.

Authors:  Jennifer M Taber; William M P Klein; Rebecca A Ferrer; Paul K J Han; Katie L Lewis; Leslie G Biesecker; Barbara B Biesecker
Journal:  J Behav Med       Date:  2015-05-24

5.  Communication strategies for enhancing understanding of the behavioral implications of genetic and biomarker tests for disease risk: the role of coherence.

Authors:  Linda D Cameron; Theresa M Marteau; Paul M Brown; William M P Klein; Kerry A Sherman
Journal:  J Behav Med       Date:  2011-06-23

6.  The effect of disease risk probability and disease type on interest in clinic-based versus direct-to-consumer genetic testing services.

Authors:  Kerry Sherman; Laura-Kate Shaw; Katrina Champion; Fernanda Caldeira; Margaret McCaskill
Journal:  J Behav Med       Date:  2015-03-27

7.  Families' experience of oncogenetic counselling: accounts from a heterogeneous hereditary cancer risk population.

Authors:  Álvaro Mendes; Liliana Sousa
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 2.375

8.  Factors Associated with Interest in Gene-Panel Testing and Risk Communication Preferences in Women from BRCA1/2 Negative Families.

Authors:  Kristina G Flores; Laurie E Steffen; Christopher J McLouth; Belinda E Vicuña; Amanda Gammon; Wendy Kohlmann; Lucretia Vigil; Zoneddy R Dayao; Melanie E Royce; Anita Y Kinney
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2016-08-06       Impact factor: 2.537

9.  Reconceptualizing harms and benefits in the genomic age.

Authors:  Anya E R Prince; Benjamin E Berkman
Journal:  Per Med       Date:  2018-09-27       Impact factor: 2.512

10.  "It's not like judgment day": public understanding of and reactions to personalized genomic risk information.

Authors:  Erynn S Gordon; Georgia Griffin; Lisa Wawak; Hauchie Pang; Sarah E Gollust; Barbara A Bernhardt
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2011-12-17       Impact factor: 2.537

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.