Literature DB >> 21698440

Communication strategies for enhancing understanding of the behavioral implications of genetic and biomarker tests for disease risk: the role of coherence.

Linda D Cameron1, Theresa M Marteau, Paul M Brown, William M P Klein, Kerry A Sherman.   

Abstract

Individuals frequently have difficulty understanding how behavior can reduce genetically-conferred risk for diseases such as colon cancer. With increasing opportunities to purchase genetic tests, communication strategies are needed for presenting information in ways that optimize comprehension and adaptive behavior. Using the Common-Sense Model, we tested the efficacy of a strategy for providing information about the relationships (links) among the physiological processes underlying disease risk and protective action on understanding, protective action motivations, and willingness to purchase tests. We tested the generalizability of the strategy's effects across varying risk levels, for genetic tests versus tests of a non-genetic biomarker, and when using graphic and numeric risk formats. In an internet-based experiment, 749 adults from four countries responded to messages about a hypothetical test for colon cancer risk. Messages varied by Risk-Action Link Information (provision or no provision of information describing how a low-fat diet reduces risk given positive results, indicating presence of a gene fault), Risk Increment (20%, 50%, or 80% risk given positive results), Risk Format (numeric or graphic presentation of risk increments), and Test Type (genetic or enzyme). Providing risk-action link information enhanced beliefs of coherence (understanding how a low-fat diet reduces risk) and response efficacy (low-fat diets effectively reduce risk) and lowered appraisals of anticipated risk of colon cancer given positive results. These effects held across risk increments, risk formats, and test types. For genetic tests, provision of risk-action link information reduced the amount individuals were willing to pay for testing. Brief messages explaining how action can reduce genetic and biomarker-detected risks can promote beliefs motivating protective action. By enhancing understanding of behavioral control, they may reduce the perceived value of genetic risk information.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21698440     DOI: 10.1007/s10865-011-9361-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Behav Med        ISSN: 0160-7715


  26 in total

Review 1.  Theory versus practice: a review of 'willingness-to-pay' in health and health care.

Authors:  J A Olsen; R D Smith
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2001-01       Impact factor: 3.046

2.  Genetic testing: psychological aspects and implications.

Authors:  Caryn Lerman; Robert T Croyle; Kenneth P Tercyak; Heidi Hamann
Journal:  J Consult Clin Psychol       Date:  2002-06

3.  Risk perceptions, worry, and attitudes about genetic testing for breast cancer susceptibility.

Authors:  Linda D Cameron; Jeanne Reeve
Journal:  Psychol Health       Date:  2006

4.  What influences participation in genetic carrier testing? Results from a discrete choice experiment.

Authors:  Jane Hall; Denzil G Fiebig; Madeleine T King; Ishrat Hossain; Jordan J Louviere
Journal:  J Health Econ       Date:  2005-10-21       Impact factor: 3.883

5.  Self-regulation and the behavioural response to DNA risk information: a theoretical analysis and framework for future research.

Authors:  Theresa M Marteau; John Weinman
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2005-09-12       Impact factor: 4.634

6.  Genetic testing for heart disease susceptibility: potential impact on motivation to quit smoking.

Authors:  S C Sanderson; S Michie
Journal:  Clin Genet       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 4.438

7.  Impact of genetic risk information and type of disease on perceived risk, anticipated affect, and expected consequences of genetic tests.

Authors:  Linda D Cameron; Kerry A Sherman; Theresa M Marteau; Paul M Brown
Journal:  Health Psychol       Date:  2009-05       Impact factor: 4.267

Review 8.  Economic methods for valuing the outcomes of genetic testing: beyond cost-effectiveness analysis.

Authors:  Scott D Grosse; Sarah Wordsworth; Katherine Payne
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2008-09       Impact factor: 8.822

9.  The impact of learning of a genetic predisposition to nicotine dependence: an analogue study.

Authors:  A J Wright; J Weinman; T M Marteau
Journal:  Tob Control       Date:  2003-06       Impact factor: 7.552

Review 10.  Risk reduction and health promotion behaviors following genetic testing for adult-onset disorders.

Authors:  Theresa A Beery; Janet K Williams
Journal:  Genet Test       Date:  2007
View more
  35 in total

1.  Implications of Internet availability of genomic information for public health practice.

Authors:  B W Hesse; N K Arora; M J Khoury
Journal:  Public Health Genomics       Date:  2012-04-04       Impact factor: 2.000

2.  Beliefs about genetic influences on eating behaviors: Characteristics and associations with weight management confidence.

Authors:  Susan Persky; Sofia Bouhlal; Megan R Goldring; Colleen M McBride
Journal:  Eat Behav       Date:  2017-02-09

Review 3.  Striking a balance in communicating pharmacogenetic test results: promoting comprehension and minimizing adverse psychological and behavioral response.

Authors:  Susanne B Haga; Rachel Mills; Hayden Bosworth
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2014-06-21

4.  Awareness of Health Outcomes Associated with Insufficient Physical Activity and Associations with Physical Activity Intentions and Behavior.

Authors:  Erika A Waters; Emily Hawkins
Journal:  J Health Commun       Date:  2018-08-09

5.  The effect of disease risk probability and disease type on interest in clinic-based versus direct-to-consumer genetic testing services.

Authors:  Kerry Sherman; Laura-Kate Shaw; Katrina Champion; Fernanda Caldeira; Margaret McCaskill
Journal:  J Behav Med       Date:  2015-03-27

6.  Concerns about unintended negative consequences of informing the public about multifactorial risks may be premature for young adult smokers.

Authors:  Erika A Waters; Caroline Kincaid; Annette R Kaufman; Michelle L Stock; Laurel M Peterson; Nicole L Muscanell; Rosanna E Guadagno
Journal:  Br J Health Psychol       Date:  2013-10-01

7.  Representations of cancer recurrence risk, recurrence worry, and health-protective behaviours: an elaborated, systematic review.

Authors:  Arturo Durazo; Linda D Cameron
Journal:  Health Psychol Rev       Date:  2019-06-03

8.  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

9.  Impact of melanoma genetic test reporting on perceived control over melanoma prevention.

Authors:  Lisa G Aspinwall; Tammy K Stump; Jennifer M Taber; Wendy Kohlmann; Samantha L Leaf; Sancy A Leachman
Journal:  J Behav Med       Date:  2015-03-31

10.  How Are Information Seeking, Scanning, and Processing Related to Beliefs About the Roles of Genetics and Behavior in Cancer Causation?

Authors:  Erika A Waters; Courtney Wheeler; Jada G Hamilton
Journal:  J Health Commun       Date:  2016-09-23
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.