Literature DB >> 19556750

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

S C Sanderson1, S C O'Neill, L A Bastian, G Bepler, C M McBride.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Much of the research examining psychosocial aspects of genetic testing has used hypothetical scenarios, based on the largely untested assumption that hypothetical genetic testing intentions are good proxies for behavior. We tested whether hypothetical interest predicts uptake of genetic testing and whether factors that predict interest also predict uptake.
METHODS: Participants (n = 116) were smokers and related to patients with lung cancer, who completed a telephone survey. Interest in genetic testing for lung cancer risk was indicated by responding 'definitely would' to a Likert-style question. Internet-delivered genetic testing for lung cancer risk was then offered. Uptake was indicated by requesting the test and receiving the result.
RESULTS: 63% of participants said they 'definitely would' take the genetic test; uptake was 38%. Participants who said they 'definitely would' take the test were more likely than others to take the offered test (45% vs. 26%, p = 0.035). Interest was associated with attitudes towards genetic testing and motivation to quit smoking. Uptake was associated with motivation, prior awareness of genetic testing, and daily Internet use.
CONCLUSION: Hypothetical interest only modestly predicts uptake of genetic testing. Interest in genetic testing likely reflects generally positive attitudes that are not good predictors of the choices individuals subsequently make. Copyright 2009 S. Karger AG, Basel.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19556750      PMCID: PMC3696369          DOI: 10.1159/000226595

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Public Health Genomics        ISSN: 1662-4246            Impact factor:   2.000


  24 in total

1.  Shattuck lecture--medical and societal consequences of the Human Genome Project.

Authors:  F S Collins
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1999-07-01       Impact factor: 91.245

2.  Dispositional motivations and genetic risk feedback.

Authors:  J Lee Westmaas; Patricia Butler Woicik
Journal:  Addict Behav       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 3.913

3.  Will genetic testing for complex diseases increase motivation to quit smoking? Anticipated reactions in a survey of smokers.

Authors:  Saskia C Sanderson; Jane Wardle
Journal:  Health Educ Behav       Date:  2005-10

Review 4.  Assessing hypothetical scenario methodology in genetic susceptibility testing analog studies: a quantitative review.

Authors:  Susan Persky; Kimberly A Kaphingst; Celeste M Condit; Colleen M McBride
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2007-11       Impact factor: 8.822

5.  Anticipated uptake of genetic testing for familial melanoma in an Australian sample: An exploratory study.

Authors:  Nadine A Kasparian; Bettina Meiser; Phyllis N Butow; R F Soames Job; Graham J Mann
Journal:  Psychooncology       Date:  2007-01       Impact factor: 3.894

6.  Sons of men with prostate cancer: their attitudes regarding possible inheritance of prostate cancer, screening, and genetic testing.

Authors:  O Bratt; U Kristoffersson; R Lundgren; H Olsson
Journal:  Urology       Date:  1997-09       Impact factor: 2.649

Review 7.  Uptake rates for breast cancer genetic testing: a systematic review.

Authors:  Mary E Ropka; Jennifer Wenzel; Elayne K Phillips; Mir Siadaty; John T Philbrick
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2006-05       Impact factor: 4.254

8.  Public interest in genetic testing for susceptibility to heart disease and cancer: a population-based survey in the UK.

Authors:  Saskia C Sanderson; Jane Wardle; Martin J Jarvis; Steve E Humphries
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 4.018

9.  Anticipated uptake and impact of genetic testing in hereditary breast and ovarian cancer families.

Authors:  J P Struewing; C Lerman; R G Kase; T R Giambarresi; M A Tucker
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  1995-03       Impact factor: 4.254

10.  Men's values-based factors on prostate cancer risk genetic testing: a telephone survey.

Authors:  David J Doukas; Yuelin Li
Journal:  BMC Med Genet       Date:  2004-12-10       Impact factor: 2.103

View more
  44 in total

1.  Reply to Ross' commentary: Reproductive benefit through newborn screening: preferences, policy and ethics.

Authors:  Yvonne Bombard; Fiona A Miller
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2012-02-29       Impact factor: 4.246

2.  Public views on participating in newborn screening using genome sequencing.

Authors:  Yvonne Bombard; Fiona A Miller; Robin Z Hayeems; Carolyn Barg; Celine Cressman; June C Carroll; Brenda J Wilson; Julian Little; Denise Avard; Michael Painter-Main; Judith Allanson; Yves Giguere; Pranesh Chakraborty
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2014-02-19       Impact factor: 4.246

3.  Dispositional optimism and perceived risk interact to predict intentions to learn genome sequencing results.

Authors:  Jennifer M Taber; William M P Klein; Rebecca A Ferrer; Katie L Lewis; Leslie G Biesecker; Barbara B Biesecker
Journal:  Health Psychol       Date:  2014-10-13       Impact factor: 4.267

4.  What's at stake? Genetic information from the perspective of people with epilepsy and their family members.

Authors:  Sara Shostak; Dana Zarhin; Ruth Ottman
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2011-07-23       Impact factor: 4.634

5.  Genetic susceptibility testing for chronic disease and intention for behavior change in healthy young adults.

Authors:  Jason L Vassy; Karen Donelan; Marie-France Hivert; Robert C Green; Richard W Grant
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2013-02-24

6.  Considerations for the impact of personal genome information: a study of genomic profiling among genetics and genomics professionals.

Authors:  Julianne M O'Daniel; Susanne B Haga; Huntington F Willard
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2010-03-30       Impact factor: 2.537

7.  A primer in genomics for social and behavioral investigators.

Authors:  Erin Turbitt; Barbara B Biesecker
Journal:  Transl Behav Med       Date:  2020-05-20       Impact factor: 3.046

Review 8.  Direct-to-consumer genomic testing: systematic review of the literature on user perspectives.

Authors:  Lesley Goldsmith; Leigh Jackson; Anita O'Connor; Heather Skirton
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2012-02-15       Impact factor: 4.246

9.  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

10.  "I don't have to know why it snows, I just have to shovel it!": Addiction Recovery, Genetic Frameworks, and Biological Citizenship.

Authors:  Molly J Dingel; Jenny Ostergren; Kathleen Heaney; Barbara A Koenig; Jennifer McCormick
Journal:  Biosocieties       Date:  2017-07-11
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.