Literature DB >> 20664629

The role of disease perceptions and results sharing in psychological adaptation after genetic susceptibility testing: the REVEAL Study.

Sato Ashida1, Laura M Koehly, J Scott Roberts, Clara A Chen, Susan Hiraki, Robert C Green.   

Abstract

This study evaluates the extent to which psychological adaptation (validated measures of depressive symptoms, anxiety, and test-specific distress) after genetic susceptibility testing is influenced by changes in beliefs about Alzheimer's disease (AD) and sharing of test results with others. Adult children of AD patients (N=269) from a randomized clinical trial involving genetic testing for apolipoprotein E (APOE) provided information before, as well as 6 weeks and 12 months after results disclosure. The levels of adaptation varied highly among participants at 12-month assessment. Participants who learned that they were ε4 negative (lower risk) had a reduction in perceived risk and concern about developing AD compared with those who learned that they were ε4 positive. Those who received results through an extended educational protocol (three in-person visits) had a larger decline in AD concern than those in a condensed protocol (educational brochure and two in-person visits). Increase in AD concern 6 weeks after disclosure was associated with increase in depression scores (b=0.20, P<0.01) and anxiety levels (b=0.20, P<0.01), and higher distress associated with AD genetic testing (b=0.18, P=0.02) 1 year after testing. Increase in perceived risk (b=0.16, P=0.04) was also associated with higher AD genetic testing distress. Sharing the test results with health professionals and friends (but not family) was associated with decrease in depression (b=-0.11, P=0.05) and anxiety levels (b=-0.16, P<0.01), respectively after a year. Enhancing discussion with regard to risks and concerns about AD during pretesting counseling and obtaining support through sharing the results after testing may help facilitate test recipients' long-term psychological adaptation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20664629      PMCID: PMC2988099          DOI: 10.1038/ejhg.2010.119

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet        ISSN: 1018-4813            Impact factor:   4.246


  38 in total

Review 1.  Ethical, legal, and social implications of genomic medicine.

Authors:  Ellen Wright Clayton
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2003-08-07       Impact factor: 91.245

2.  Family system characteristics and psychological adjustment to cancer susceptibility genetic testing: a prospective study.

Authors:  I van Oostrom; H Meijers-Heijboer; H J Duivenvoorden; A H J T Bröcker-Vriends; C J van Asperen; R H Sijmons; C Seynaeve; A R van Gool; J G M Klijn; A Tibben
Journal:  Clin Genet       Date:  2007-01       Impact factor: 4.438

3.  Disclosing genetic test results to family members.

Authors:  Rebekah J Hamilton; Barbara J Bowers; Janet K Williams
Journal:  J Nurs Scholarsh       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 3.176

4.  Prognostic factors for hereditary cancer distress six months after BRCA1/2 or HNPCC genetic susceptibility testing.

Authors:  Iris van Oostrom; Hanne Meijers-Heijboer; Hugo J Duivenvoorden; Annette H J T Bröcker-Vriends; Christi J van Asperen; Rolf H Sijmons; Caroline Seynaeve; Arthur R Van Gool; Jan G M Klijn; Aad Tibben
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  2006-10-11       Impact factor: 9.162

5.  An inventory for measuring clinical anxiety: psychometric properties.

Authors:  A T Beck; N Epstein; G Brown; R A Steer
Journal:  J Consult Clin Psychol       Date:  1988-12

6.  Psychological impact of genetic testing for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Ellen R Gritz; Susan K Peterson; Sally W Vernon; Salma K Marani; Walter F Baile; Beatty G Watts; Christopher I Amos; Marsha L Frazier; Patrick M Lynch
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2005-03-20       Impact factor: 44.544

7.  A brief assessment of concerns associated with genetic testing for cancer: the Multidimensional Impact of Cancer Risk Assessment (MICRA) questionnaire.

Authors:  David Cella; Chanita Hughes; Amy Peterman; Chih-Hung Chang; Beth N Peshkin; Marc D Schwartz; Lari Wenzel; Amy Lemke; Alfred C Marcus; Caryn Lerman
Journal:  Health Psychol       Date:  2002-11       Impact factor: 4.267

Review 8.  Psychological impact of genetic testing for cancer susceptibility: an update of the literature.

Authors:  Bettina Meiser
Journal:  Psychooncology       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 3.894

9.  Monitoring coping style moderates emotional reactions to genetic testing for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer: a longitudinal study.

Authors:  S Shiloh; L Koehly; J Jenkins; J Martin; D Hadley
Journal:  Psychooncology       Date:  2008-08       Impact factor: 3.894

10.  Effects of age, sex, and ethnicity on the association between apolipoprotein E genotype and Alzheimer disease. A meta-analysis. APOE and Alzheimer Disease Meta Analysis Consortium.

Authors:  L A Farrer; L A Cupples; J L Haines; B Hyman; W A Kukull; R Mayeux; R H Myers; M A Pericak-Vance; N Risch; C M van Duijn
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1997 Oct 22-29       Impact factor: 56.272

View more
  23 in total

1.  Communication about DTC testing: commentary on a 'family experience of personal genomics'.

Authors:  Anna Middleton
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2012-01-06       Impact factor: 2.537

2.  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

3.  The ever-evolving concept of clinical significance and the potential for sins of omission in genetic research.

Authors:  Gregory Costain; Anne S Bassett
Journal:  Am J Bioeth       Date:  2012       Impact factor: 11.229

4.  Outcomes of a Randomized Controlled Trial of Genomic Counseling for Patients Receiving Personalized and Actionable Complex Disease Reports.

Authors:  Kevin Sweet; Amy C Sturm; Tara Schmidlen; Joseph McElroy; Laura Scheinfeldt; Kandamurugu Manickam; Erynn S Gordon; Shelly Hovick; J Scott Roberts; Amanda Ewart Toland; Michael Christman
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2017-03-27       Impact factor: 2.537

5.  Information-seeking and sharing behavior following genomic testing for diabetes risk.

Authors:  Rachel Mills; Jill Powell; William Barry; Susanne B Haga
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2014-06-14       Impact factor: 2.537

6.  You never call, you never write: why return of 'omic' results to research participants is both a good idea and a moral imperative.

Authors:  Misha Angrist
Journal:  Per Med       Date:  2011-11       Impact factor: 2.512

7.  Personalized genomic results: analysis of informational needs.

Authors:  Tara J Schmidlen; Lisa Wawak; Rachel Kasper; J Felipe García-España; Michael F Christman; Erynn S Gordon
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2014-02-03       Impact factor: 2.537

8.  Genetics specialists' perspectives on disclosure of genomic incidental findings in the clinical setting.

Authors:  Nancy R Downing; Janet K Williams; Sandra Daack-Hirsch; Martha Driessnack; Christian M Simon
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2012-10-12

9.  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

10.  Public perceptions of presymptomatic testing for Alzheimer disease.

Authors:  Richard J Caselli; Jessica Langbaum; Gary E Marchant; Rachel A Lindor; Katherine S Hunt; Bruce R Henslin; Amylou C Dueck; Jason S Robert
Journal:  Mayo Clin Proc       Date:  2014-08-26       Impact factor: 7.616

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.