Literature DB >> 21660870

Modelling decisions to undergo genetic testing for susceptibility to common health conditions: an ancillary study of the Multiplex Initiative.

Christopher H Wade1, Shoshana Shiloh, Samuel W Woolford, J Scott Roberts, Sharon Hensley Alford, Theresa M Marteau, Barbara B Biesecker.   

Abstract

New genetic tests reveal risks for multiple conditions simultaneously, although little is understood about the psychological factors that affect testing uptake. We assessed a conceptual model called the multiplex genetic testing model (MGTM) using structural equation modelling. The MGTM delineates worry, perceived severity, perceived risk, response efficacy and attitudes towards testing as predictors of intentions and behaviour. Participants were 270 healthy insured adults aged 25-40 from the Multiplex Initiative conducted within a health care system in Detroit, MI, USA. Participants were offered a genetic test that assessed risk for eight common health conditions. Confirmatory factor analysis revealed that worry, perceived risk and severity clustered into two disease domains: cancer or metabolic conditions. Only perceived severity of metabolic conditions was correlated with general response efficacy (β = 0.13, p<0.05), which predicted general attitudes towards testing (β = 0.24, p<0.01). Consistent with our hypothesised model, attitudes towards testing were the strongest predictors of intentions to undergo testing (β = 0.49, p<0.01), which in turn predicted testing uptake (OR 17.7, β = 0.97, p<0.01). The MGTM explained a striking 48% of the variance in intentions and 94% of the variation in uptake. These findings support use of the MGTM to explain psychological predictors of testing for multiple health conditions.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21660870      PMCID: PMC3175306          DOI: 10.1080/08870446.2011.586699

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychol Health        ISSN: 0887-0446


  32 in total

Review 1.  Consumers' views of direct-to-consumer genetic information.

Authors:  Colleen M McBride; Christopher H Wade; Kimberly A Kaphingst
Journal:  Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet       Date:  2010       Impact factor: 8.929

Review 2.  The current landscape for direct-to-consumer genetic testing: legal, ethical, and policy issues.

Authors:  Stuart Hogarth; Gail Javitt; David Melzer
Journal:  Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 8.929

3.  Participation in genetic testing research varies by social group.

Authors:  Sharon Hensley Alford; Colleen M McBride; Robert J Reid; Eric B Larson; Andreas D Baxevanis; Lawrence C Brody
Journal:  Public Health Genomics       Date:  2010-03-18       Impact factor: 2.000

4.  Prevalence and correlates of illness worry in the general population.

Authors:  Russell Noyes; Caroline P Carney; Stephen L Hillis; Laura E Jones; Douglas R Langbehn
Journal:  Psychosomatics       Date:  2005 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 2.386

5.  Application of the protection motivation theory to genetic testing for breast cancer risk.

Authors:  Almut W Helmes
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2002-11       Impact factor: 4.018

6.  Perceived risk and worry about prostate cancer: a proposed conceptual model.

Authors:  Julie B Schnur; Terry A DiLorenzo; Guy H Montgomery; Joel Erblich; Gary Winkel; Simon J Hall; Dana H Bovbjerg
Journal:  Behav Med       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 3.104

7.  The multi-dimensional measure of informed choice: a validation study.

Authors:  Susan Michie; Elizabeth Dormandy; Theresa M Marteau
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2002-09

8.  Considerations for designing a prototype genetic test for use in translational research.

Authors:  C H Wade; C M McBride; S L R Kardia; L C Brody
Journal:  Public Health Genomics       Date:  2009-09-03       Impact factor: 2.000

9.  Characteristics of users of online personalized genomic risk assessments: implications for physician-patient interactions.

Authors:  Colleen M McBride; Sharon Hensley Alford; Robert J Reid; Eric B Larson; Andreas D Baxevanis; Lawrence C Brody
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 8.822

10.  Randomized trial of group interventions to reduce HIV/STD risk and change theoretical mediators among detained adolescents.

Authors:  Sarah J Schmiege; Michelle R Broaddus; Michael Levin; Angela D Bryan
Journal:  J Consult Clin Psychol       Date:  2009-02
View more
  11 in total

1.  Psychosocial, attitudinal, and demographic correlates of cancer-related germline genetic testing in the 2017 Health Information National Trends Survey.

Authors:  Megan C Roberts; Erin Turbitt; William M P Klein
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2019-02-20

2.  Factors Associated with Acceptability, Consideration and Intention of Uptake of Direct-To-Consumer Genetic Testing: A Survey Study.

Authors:  Kelly F J Stewart; Daša Kokole; Anke Wesselius; Annemie M W J Schols; Maurice P Zeegers; Hein de Vries; Liesbeth A D M van Osch
Journal:  Public Health Genomics       Date:  2018-10-25       Impact factor: 2.000

3.  Preferences for the Return of Individual Results From Research on Pediatric Biobank Samples.

Authors:  Kurt D Christensen; Sarah K Savage; Noelle L Huntington; Elissa R Weitzman; Sonja I Ziniel; Phoebe L Bacon; Cara N Cacioppo; Robert C Green; Ingrid A Holm
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2017-04       Impact factor: 1.742

Review 4.  Predictors of genetic testing decisions: a systematic review and critique of the literature.

Authors:  Kate Sweeny; Arezou Ghane; Angela M Legg; Ho Phi Huynh; Sara E Andrews
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2014-04-11       Impact factor: 2.537

5.  Participant Satisfaction With a Preference-Setting Tool for the Return of Individual Research Results in Pediatric Genomic Research.

Authors:  Ingrid A Holm; Brittany R Iles; Sonja I Ziniel; Phoebe L Bacon; Sarah K Savage; Kurt D Christensen; Elissa R Weitzman; Robert C Green; Noelle L Huntington
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 1.742

6.  Preferences among diseases on a genetic susceptibility test for common health conditions: an ancillary study of the multiplex initiative.

Authors:  C H Wade; S Shiloh; J S Roberts; S Hensley Alford; T M Marteau; B B Biesecker
Journal:  Public Health Genomics       Date:  2012-06-08       Impact factor: 2.000

7.  Intentions to receive individual results from whole-genome sequencing among participants in the ClinSeq study.

Authors:  Flavia M Facio; Haley Eidem; Tyler Fisher; Stephanie Brooks; Amy Linn; Kimberly A Kaphingst; Leslie G Biesecker; Barbara B Biesecker
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2012-08-15       Impact factor: 4.246

8.  On averages and peaks: how do people integrate attitudes about multiple diseases to reach a decision about multiplex genetic testing?

Authors:  Shoshana Shiloh; Christopher H Wade; J Scott Roberts; Sharon Hensley Alford; Barbara B Biesecker
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2012-11-05       Impact factor: 2.583

9.  Translational Genomic Research: Protocol Development and Initial Outcomes following SNP Testing for Colon Cancer Risk.

Authors:  Rachel Nusbaum; Kara-Grace Leventhal; Gillian W Hooker; Beth N Peshkin; Morgan Butrick; Yasmin Salehizadeh; William Tuong; Susan Eggly; Jeena Mathew; David Goerlitz; Peter G Shields; Marc D Schwartz; Kristi D Graves
Journal:  Transl Behav Med       Date:  2012-06-10       Impact factor: 3.046

10.  Are beliefs about the importance of genetics for cancer prevention and early detection associated with high risk cancer genetic testing in the U.S. Population?

Authors:  Sukh Makhnoon; Kristin G Maki; Robert Yu; Susan K Peterson; Sanjay Shete
Journal:  Prev Med Rep       Date:  2022-03-29
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.