Literature DB >> 21992449

The impact of risk information exposure on women's beliefs about direct-to-consumer genetic testing for BRCA mutations.

S W Gray1, R C Hornik, J S Schwartz, K Armstrong.   

Abstract

Despite an increase in direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing, little is known about how variations in website content might alter consumer behavior. We evaluated the impact of risk information provision on women's attitudes about DTC BRCA testing. We conducted a randomized experiment; women viewed a 'mock' BRCA testing website without [control group (CG)] or with information on the potential risks of DTC testing [RG; framed two ways: unattributed risk (UR) information and risk information presented by experts (ER)]. Seven hundred and sixty-seven women participated; mean age was 37 years, mean education was 15 years, and 79% of subjects were white. Women in the RG had less positive beliefs about DTC testing (mean RG = 23.8, CG = 25.2; p = 0.001), lower intentions to get tested (RG = 2.8, CG = 3.1; p = 0.03), were more likely to prefer clinic-based testing (RG = 5.1, CG = 4.8; p = 0.03) and to report that they had seen enough risk information (RG = 5.3, CG = 4.7; p < 0.001). UR and ER exposure produced similar effects. Effects did not differ for women with or without a personal/family history of breast/ovarian cancer. Exposing women to the potential risks of DTC BRCA testing altered their beliefs, preferences, and intentions. Risk messages appear to be salient to women irrespective of their chance of having a BRCA mutation.
© 2011 John Wiley & Sons A/S.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21992449      PMCID: PMC3846286          DOI: 10.1111/j.1399-0004.2011.01797.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Genet        ISSN: 0009-9163            Impact factor:   4.438


  41 in total

1.  Where there's a web, there's a way: commercial genetic testing and the Internet.

Authors:  Bryn Williams-Jones
Journal:  Community Genet       Date:  2003

2.  Genes on the Web--direct-to-consumer marketing of genetic testing.

Authors:  Adam J Wolfberg
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2006-08-10       Impact factor: 91.245

3.  The incidentalome: a threat to genomic medicine.

Authors:  Isaac S Kohane; Daniel R Masys; Russ B Altman
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2006-07-12       Impact factor: 56.272

4.  Letting the genome out of the bottle--will we get our wish?

Authors:  David J Hunter; Muin J Khoury; Jeffrey M Drazen
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2008-01-10       Impact factor: 91.245

5.  Direct-to-consumer genetic testing: good, bad or benign?

Authors:  T Caulfield; N M Ries; P N Ray; C Shuman; B Wilson
Journal:  Clin Genet       Date:  2009-11-21       Impact factor: 4.438

6.  Social networkers' attitudes toward direct-to-consumer personal genome testing.

Authors:  Amy L McGuire; Christina M Diaz; Tao Wang; Susan G Hilsenbeck
Journal:  Am J Bioeth       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 11.229

Review 7.  Direct-to-consumer genetic testing: failure is not an option.

Authors:  R B Altman
Journal:  Clin Pharmacol Ther       Date:  2009-07       Impact factor: 6.875

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

9.  Risk information exposure and direct-to-consumer genetic testing for BRCA mutations among women with a personal or family history of breast or ovarian cancer.

Authors:  Stacy W Gray; Cristin O'Grady; Lauren Karp; Daniel Smith; J Sanford Schwartz; Robert C Hornik; Katrina Armstrong
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2009-03-24       Impact factor: 4.254

10.  ACMG statement on direct-to-consumer genetic testing.

Authors: 
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2004 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 8.822

View more
  7 in total

1.  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

2.  Direct-to-consumer genomic testing from the perspective of the health professional: a systematic review of the literature.

Authors:  Lesley Goldsmith; Leigh Jackson; Anita O'Connor; Heather Skirton
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2013-01-16

Review 3.  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

4.  Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing and Personal Genomics Services: A Review of Recent Empirical Studies.

Authors:  J Scott Roberts; Jenny Ostergren
Journal:  Curr Genet Med Rep       Date:  2013-09

Review 5.  Considerations for developing regulations for direct-to-consumer genetic testing: a scoping review using the 3-I framework.

Authors:  Alexandra Cernat; Naazish S Bashir; Wendy J Ungar
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2022-02-16

6.  Increasing Public Awareness of Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Tests: Health Care Access, Internet Use, and Population Density Correlates.

Authors:  Lila J Finney Rutten; Sarah E Gollust; Sana Naveed; Richard P Moser
Journal:  J Cancer Epidemiol       Date:  2012-07-30

Review 7.  Internet-Based Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Loredana Covolo; Sara Rubinelli; Elisabetta Ceretti; Umberto Gelatti
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2015-12-14       Impact factor: 5.428

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.