Literature DB >> 20139767

"I know what you told me, but this is what I think:" perceived risk of Alzheimer disease among individuals who accurately recall their genetics-based risk estimate.

Erin Linnenbringer1, J Scott Roberts, Susan Hiraki, L Adrienne Cupples, Robert C Green.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: This study evaluates the Alzheimer disease risk perceptions of individuals who accurately recall their genetics-based Alzheimer disease risk assessment.
METHODS: Two hundred forty-six unaffected first-degree relatives of patients with Alzheimer disease were enrolled in a multisite randomized controlled trial examining the effects of communicating APOE genotype and lifetime Alzheimer disease risk information.
RESULTS: Among the 158 participants who accurately recalled their Alzheimer disease risk assessment 6 weeks after risk disclosure, 75 (47.5%) believed their Alzheimer disease risk was more than 5% points different from the Alzheimer disease risk estimate they were given. Within this subgroup, 69.3% believed that their Alzheimer disease risk was higher than what they were told (discordant high), whereas 30.7% believed that their Alzheimer disease risk was lower (discordant low). Participants with a higher baseline risk perception were more likely to have a discordant-high risk perception (P < 0.05). Participants in the discordant-low group were more likely to be APOE epsilon4 positive (P < 0.05) and to score higher on an Alzheimer disease controllability scale (P < 0.05).
CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that even among individuals who accurately recall their Alzheimer disease risk assessment, many people do not take communicated risk estimates at face value. Further exploration of this clinically relevant response to risk information is warranted.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20139767      PMCID: PMC2921681          DOI: 10.1097/GIM.0b013e3181cef9e1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Genet Med        ISSN: 1098-3600            Impact factor:   8.822


  44 in total

Review 1.  Information processing in the context of genetic risk: implications for genetic-risk communication.

Authors:  Holly Etchegary; Colin Perrier
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2007-05-01       Impact factor: 2.537

2.  Illness representations among first-degree relatives of people with Alzheimer disease.

Authors:  J S Roberts; C M Connell
Journal:  Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord       Date:  2000 Jul-Sep       Impact factor: 2.703

3.  Genetic susceptibility testing versus family history-based risk assessment: Impact on perceived risk of Alzheimer disease.

Authors:  Susan LaRusse; J Scott Roberts; Theresa M Marteau; Heather Katzen; Erin L Linnenbringer; Melissa Barber; Peter Whitehouse; Kimberly Quaid; Tamsen Brown; Robert C Green; Norman R Relkin
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 8.822

4.  Is family history related to preventive health behaviors and medical management in breast cancer patients?

Authors:  Lisa Madlensky; Shirley W Flatt; Wayne A Bardwell; Cheryl L Rock; John P Pierce
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 4.872

5.  The effect of experiential knowledge on construction of risk perception in hereditary breast/ovarian cancer.

Authors:  Lori d'Agincourt-Canning
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 2.537

6.  Effects of individualized breast cancer risk counseling: a randomized trial.

Authors:  C Lerman; E Lustbader; B Rimer; M Daly; S Miller; C Sands; A Balshem
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1995-02-15       Impact factor: 13.506

7.  Putting science over supposition in the arena of personalized genomics.

Authors:  Colleen M McBride; Sharon Hensley Alford; Robert J Reid; Eric B Larson; Andreas D Baxevanis; Lawrence C Brody
Journal:  Nat Genet       Date:  2008-08       Impact factor: 38.330

8.  Genetic counselling for cancer and risk perception.

Authors:  Annika Lidén; Gunilla Berglund; Mats G Hansson; Richard Rosenquist; P O Sjödén; Karin Nordin
Journal:  Acta Oncol       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 4.089

9.  The impact of genetic counselling on risk perception and mental health in women with a family history of breast cancer.

Authors:  M Watson; S Lloyd; J Davidson; L Meyer; R Eeles; S Ebbs; V Murday
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  1999-02       Impact factor: 7.640

Review 10.  A systematic review of the impact of genetic counseling on risk perception accuracy.

Authors:  Chris M R Smerecnik; Ilse Mesters; Eline Verweij; Nanne K de Vries; Hein de Vries
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2009-03-17       Impact factor: 2.537

View more
  36 in total

Review 1.  Communicating genetic risk information for common disorders in the era of genomic medicine.

Authors:  Denise M Lautenbach; Kurt D Christensen; Jeffrey A Sparks; Robert C Green
Journal:  Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet       Date:  2013       Impact factor: 8.929

2.  Choosing not to undergo predictive genetic testing for hereditary colorectal cancer syndromes: expanding our understanding of decliners and declining.

Authors:  Louise A Keogh; Heather Niven; Alison Rutstein; Louisa Flander; Clara Gaff; Mark Jenkins
Journal:  J Behav Med       Date:  2017-02-14

Review 3.  The future of direct-to-consumer clinical genetic tests.

Authors:  Felix W Frueh; Henry T Greely; Robert C Green; Stuart Hogarth; Sue Siegel
Journal:  Nat Rev Genet       Date:  2011-06-01       Impact factor: 53.242

Review 4.  Expert consensus document: Mind the gaps—advancing research into short-term and long-term neuropsychological outcomes of youth sports-related concussions.

Authors:  Aaron J Carman; Rennie Ferguson; Robert Cantu; R Dawn Comstock; Penny A Dacks; Steven T DeKosky; Sam Gandy; James Gilbert; Chad Gilliland; Gerard Gioia; Christopher Giza; Michael Greicius; Brian Hainline; Ronald L Hayes; James Hendrix; Barry Jordan; James Kovach; Rachel F Lane; Rebekah Mannix; Thomas Murray; Tad Seifert; Diana W Shineman; Eric Warren; Elisabeth Wilde; Huntington Willard; Howard M Fillit
Journal:  Nat Rev Neurol       Date:  2015-03-17       Impact factor: 42.937

5.  Uninformed consent in nutrigenomic research.

Authors:  A Cecile Jw Janssens; Eline M Bunnik; Wylie Burke; Maartje Hn Schermer
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2017-05-10       Impact factor: 4.246

6.  Clinical implications of APOE genotyping for late-onset Alzheimer's disease (LOAD) risk estimation: a review of the literature.

Authors:  Victoria S Marshe; Ilona Gorbovskaya; Sarah Kanji; Maxine Kish; Daniel J Müller
Journal:  J Neural Transm (Vienna)       Date:  2018-10-31       Impact factor: 3.575

7.  My Lived Experiences Are More Important Than Your Probabilities: The Role of Individualized Risk Estimates for Decision Making about Participation in the Study of Tamoxifen and Raloxifene (STAR).

Authors:  Christine Holmberg; Erika A Waters; Katie Whitehouse; Mary Daly; Worta McCaskill-Stevens
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2015-07-16       Impact factor: 2.583

8.  Factors that affect the decision to undergo amniocentesis in women with normal Down syndrome screening results: it is all about the age.

Authors:  Julia Grinshpun-Cohen; Talya Miron-Shatz; Liat Ries-Levavi; Elon Pras
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2014-05-12       Impact factor: 3.377

9.  Perceptions of tissue storage in a dementia population among spouses and offspring.

Authors:  Megan M Martin; Erin W Rothwell; Vickie L Venne; Norman L Foster
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2015-02-03       Impact factor: 2.537

10.  Impact of delivery models on understanding genomic risk for type 2 diabetes.

Authors:  S B Haga; W T Barry; R Mills; L Svetkey; S Suchindran; H F Willard; G S Ginsburg
Journal:  Public Health Genomics       Date:  2014-02-27       Impact factor: 2.000

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.