Literature DB >> 20347649

Patient responses to genetic information: studies of patients with hereditary cancer syndromes identify issues for use of genetic testing in nephrology practice.

Kimberly A Kaphingst1, Colleen M McBride.   

Abstract

Advances in the genetic basis of kidney disease may mean that genetic testing is increasingly important in reducing disease morbidity and mortality among patients. However, there is little research examining patient responses to genetic information for Mendelian and common kidney diseases. Existing research on kidney and other hereditary cancer syndromes can inform three major issues relevant to the nephrology context as follows: (1) how patients understand their risk of disease after genetic counseling and testing, (2) their emotional responses to the information, and (3) their uptake of recommended risk-reducing strategies. Prior research suggests that genetic counseling and testing may improve patient understanding of genetics, but patients still might not fully understand the meaning of their results for disease risk. Genetic counseling and testing does not appear to result in long-term negative emotional effects among patients who carry mutations or those who do not. Finally, although genetic counseling and testing may improve adherence to recommended screening strategies, adherence varies substantially across different risk-reduction options. Previous research also suggests that computer-based interventions might be a useful adjunct to genetic counseling approaches. Examining whether and how these prior findings relate to the context of hereditary kidney disease is an important area for future research.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20347649      PMCID: PMC2852315          DOI: 10.1016/j.semnephrol.2010.01.011

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Semin Nephrol        ISSN: 0270-9295            Impact factor:   5.299


  68 in total

1.  "Talking About Chance": The Presentation of Risk Information During Genetic Counseling for Breast and Ovarian Cancer.

Authors:  N Hallowell; H Statham; F Murton; J Green; M Richards
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  1997-09       Impact factor: 2.537

2.  Impact of an information booklet on satisfaction and decision-making about BRCA genetic testing.

Authors:  Julien Mancini; Catherine Noguès; Claude Adenis; Pascaline Berthet; Valerie Bonadona; Agnès Chompret; Isabelle Coupier; François Eisinger; Jean-Pierre Fricker; Marion Gauthier-Villars; Christine Lasset; Alain Lortholary; Tan Dat N'Guyen; Philippe Vennin; Hagay Sobol; Dominique Stoppa-Lyonnet; Claire Julian-Reynier
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  2006-03-23       Impact factor: 9.162

3.  Family history of breast cancer: what do women understand and recall about their genetic risk?

Authors:  M Watson; V Duvivier; M Wade Walsh; S Ashley; J Davidson; M Papaikonomou; V Murday; N Sacks; R Eeles
Journal:  J Med Genet       Date:  1998-09       Impact factor: 6.318

4.  Prophylactic surgery decisions and surveillance practices one year following BRCA1/2 testing.

Authors:  C Lerman; C Hughes; R T Croyle; D Main; C Durham; C Snyder; A Bonney; J F Lynch; S A Narod; H T Lynch
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2000-07       Impact factor: 4.018

5.  Controlled trial of pretest education approaches to enhance informed decision-making for BRCA1 gene testing.

Authors:  C Lerman; B Biesecker; J L Benkendorf; J Kerner; A Gomez-Caminero; C Hughes; M M Reed
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1997-01-15       Impact factor: 13.506

Review 6.  Psychological impact of genetic counseling for familial cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Dejana Braithwaite; Jon Emery; Fiona Walter; A Toby Prevost; Stephen Sutton
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2004-01-21       Impact factor: 13.506

Review 7.  Molecular genetics of hereditary renal cancer: new genes and diagnostic and therapeutic opportunities.

Authors:  Donna E Hansel; Brian I Rini
Journal:  Expert Rev Anticancer Ther       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 4.512

8.  American Society of Clinical Oncology policy statement update: genetic testing for cancer susceptibility.

Authors: 
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2003-04-11       Impact factor: 44.544

Review 9.  Hereditary renal cancers.

Authors:  Peter L Choyke; Gladys M Glenn; McClellan M Walther; Berton Zbar; W Marston Linehan
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2003-01       Impact factor: 11.105

10.  The impact of genetic counselling about breast cancer risk on women's risk perceptions and levels of distress.

Authors:  A Cull; E D Anderson; S Campbell; J Mackay; E Smyth; M Steel
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  1999-02       Impact factor: 7.640

View more
  5 in total

1.  Effects of racial and ethnic group and health literacy on responses to genomic risk information in a medically underserved population.

Authors:  Kimberly A Kaphingst; Jewel D Stafford; Lucy D'Agostino McGowan; Joann Seo; Christina R Lachance; Melody S Goodman
Journal:  Health Psychol       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 4.267

2.  Communicating genetic and genomic information: health literacy and numeracy considerations.

Authors:  D H Lea; K A Kaphingst; D Bowen; I Lipkus; D W Hadley
Journal:  Public Health Genomics       Date:  2010-04-20       Impact factor: 2.000

3.  Effects of informed consent for individual genome sequencing on relevant knowledge.

Authors:  K A Kaphingst; F M Facio; M-R Cheng; S Brooks; H Eidem; A Linn; B B Biesecker; L G Biesecker
Journal:  Clin Genet       Date:  2012-08-07       Impact factor: 4.438

4.  Relationships Between Health Literacy and Genomics-Related Knowledge, Self-Efficacy, Perceived Importance, and Communication in a Medically Underserved Population.

Authors:  Kimberly A Kaphingst; Melvin Blanchard; Laurel Milam; Manusheela Pokharel; Ashley Elrick; Melody S Goodman
Journal:  J Health Commun       Date:  2016

5.  Healthcare professionals' and patients' perspectives on consent to clinical genetic testing: moving towards a more relational approach.

Authors:  Gabrielle Natalie Samuel; Sandi Dheensa; Bobbie Farsides; Angela Fenwick; Anneke Lucassen
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2017-08-08       Impact factor: 2.652

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.