Kurt D Christensen1, J Scott Roberts, Wendy R Uhlmann, Robert C Green. 1. Department of Health Behavior and Health Education, University of Michigan School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-2029, USA. kdchrist@umich.edu
Abstract
PURPOSE: Perceptions about the pros and cons of genetic susceptibility testing are among the best predictors of test utilization. How actual testing changes such perceptions has yet to be examined. METHODS: In a clinical trial, first-degree relatives of patients with Alzheimer disease received genetic risk assessments for Alzheimer disease including APOE disclosure. Participants rated 11 possible benefits associated with genetic testing (pros) and 10 risks or limitations (cons) before genetic risk disclosure and again 12 months afterward. RESULTS: Pros were rated higher than cons at baseline (3.53 vs. 1.83, P < 0.001) and at 12 months after risk disclosure (3.33 vs. 1.88, P < 0.001). Ratings of pros decreased during the 12-month period (3.33 vs. 3.53, P < 0.001). Ratings of cons did not change (1.88 vs. 1.83, P = 0.199) except for a three-item discrimination subscale which increased (2.07 vs. 1.92, P = 0.012). Among specific pros and cons, three items related to prevention and treatment changed the most. CONCLUSION: The process of APOE genetic risk assessment for Alzheimer disease sensitizes some to its limitations and the risks of discrimination; however, 1-year after disclosure, test recipients still consider the pros to strongly outweigh the cons.
PURPOSE: Perceptions about the pros and cons of genetic susceptibility testing are among the best predictors of test utilization. How actual testing changes such perceptions has yet to be examined. METHODS: In a clinical trial, first-degree relatives of patients with Alzheimer disease received genetic risk assessments for Alzheimer disease including APOE disclosure. Participants rated 11 possible benefits associated with genetic testing (pros) and 10 risks or limitations (cons) before genetic risk disclosure and again 12 months afterward. RESULTS: Pros were rated higher than cons at baseline (3.53 vs. 1.83, P < 0.001) and at 12 months after risk disclosure (3.33 vs. 1.88, P < 0.001). Ratings of pros decreased during the 12-month period (3.33 vs. 3.53, P < 0.001). Ratings of cons did not change (1.88 vs. 1.83, P = 0.199) except for a three-item discrimination subscale which increased (2.07 vs. 1.92, P = 0.012). Among specific pros and cons, three items related to prevention and treatment changed the most. CONCLUSION: The process of APOE genetic risk assessment for Alzheimer disease sensitizes some to its limitations and the risks of discrimination; however, 1-year after disclosure, test recipients still consider the pros to strongly outweigh the cons.
Authors: L Adrienne Cupples; Lindsay A Farrer; A Dessa Sadovnick; Norman Relkin; Peter Whitehouse; Robert C Green Journal: Genet Med Date: 2004 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Cathleen D Zick; Charles J Mathews; J Scott Roberts; Robert Cook-Deegan; Robert J Pokorski; Robert C Green Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2005 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Angela D Lanie; Toby Epstein Jayaratne; Jane P Sheldon; Sharon L R Kardia; Elizabeth S Anderson; Merle Feldbaum; Elizabeth M Petty Journal: J Genet Couns Date: 2004-08 Impact factor: 2.537
Authors: Donald H Taylor; Robert M Cook-Deegan; Susan Hiraki; J Scott Roberts; Dan G Blazer; Robert C Green Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2010 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 9.048
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
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
Authors: Robert C Green; Kurt D Christensen; L Adrienne Cupples; Norman R Relkin; Peter J Whitehouse; Charmaine D M Royal; Thomas O Obisesan; Robert Cook-Deegan; Erin Linnenbringer; Melissa Barber Butson; Grace-Ann Fasaye; Elana Levinson; J Scott Roberts Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2014-12-09 Impact factor: 21.566
Authors: Mary M Ryan; Chelsea G Cox; Megan Witbracht; Dan Hoang; Daniel L Gillen; Joshua D Grill Journal: Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord Date: 2021 Apr-Jun 01 Impact factor: 2.703