Literature DB >> 22131063

Preferences for genetic testing to identify hereditary colorectal cancer: perspectives of high-risk patients, community members, and clinicians.

Judith Walsh1, Millie Arora, Christina Hosenfeld, Uri Ladabaum, Miriam Kuppermann, Sara J Knight.   

Abstract

The aim of this study was to establish key characteristics that patients, consumers, and health professionals value regarding genetic testing (GT) and personalized medicine using the example of GT for hereditary Lynch syndrome. We conducted a series of focus groups with individuals recruited from a clinic that follows those at high risk for hereditary cancer, individuals recruited from the community, physicians, and genetic counselors. Participants were presented with clinical scenarios about Lynch syndrome testing and asked to identify characteristics that they perceived as important in making decisions about GT. Forty-two participants (19 community members, 8 high-risk and cancer patients, 3 genetic counselors, and 8 physicians) participated. Among community members and patients, the most frequently discussed considerations were the personal impact of GT and family impact, respectively. Among physicians, the most frequently discussed topic was the characteristics of genomic services (e.g., test invasiveness); among genetic counselors, the most frequently discussed topic was evidence and recommendations. A variety of test characteristics were important in decision making about GT. High-risk patients, community members, and health care providers had different priorities. Health care professionals should be aware of differences between their own considerations about GT and those that are important to patients.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22131063     DOI: 10.1007/s13187-011-0286-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Cancer Educ        ISSN: 0885-8195            Impact factor:   2.037


  26 in total

1.  How interested is the public in genetic testing for colon cancer susceptibility? Report of a cross-sectional population survey.

Authors:  I D Graham; D M Logan; R Hughes-Benzie; W K Evans; H Perras; L M McAuley; A Laupacis; H Stern
Journal:  Cancer Prev Control       Date:  1998-08

2.  The primary care physician role in cancer genetics: a qualitative study of patient experience.

Authors:  Fiona A Miller; June C Carroll; Brenda J Wilson; Jessica P Bytautas; Judith Allanson; Mario Cappelli; Sonya de Laat; Fred Saibil
Journal:  Fam Pract       Date:  2010-06-09       Impact factor: 2.267

3.  The association between race and attitudes about predictive genetic testing.

Authors:  Nikki Peters; Abigail Rose; Katrina Armstrong
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2004-03       Impact factor: 4.254

4.  The association between knowledge and attitudes about genetic testing for cancer risk in the United States.

Authors:  Abigail Rose; Nikki Peters; Judy A Shea; Katrina Armstrong
Journal:  J Health Commun       Date:  2005-06

5.  Patient perceptions of stool-based DNA testing for colorectal cancer screening.

Authors:  Paul C Schroy; Timothy C Heeren
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 5.043

Review 6.  Racial differences in prostate cancer treatment outcomes: a systematic review.

Authors:  Nikki Peters; Katrina Armstrong
Journal:  Cancer Nurs       Date:  2005 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 2.592

7.  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

8.  Genetic testing for colorectal carcinoma susceptibility: focus group responses of individuals with colorectal carcinoma and first-degree relatives.

Authors:  A Y Kinney; B M DeVellis; C Skrzynia; R Millikan
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2001-01-01       Impact factor: 6.860

9.  Hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer family members' perceptions about the duty to inform and health professionals' role in disseminating genetic information.

Authors:  Rebecca D Pentz; Susan K Peterson; Beatty Watts; Sally W Vernon; Patrick M Lynch; Laura M Koehly; Ellen R Gritz
Journal:  Genet Test       Date:  2005

10.  Public interest in genetic testing for susceptibility to heart disease and cancer: a population-based survey in the UK.

Authors:  Saskia C Sanderson; Jane Wardle; Martin J Jarvis; Steve E Humphries
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 4.018

View more
  7 in total

1.  Public attitudes towards genomic risk profiling as a component of routine population screening.

Authors:  S G Nicholls; B J Wilson; S M Craigie; H Etchegary; D Castle; J C Carroll; B K Potter; L Lemyre; J Little
Journal:  Genome       Date:  2013-08-31       Impact factor: 2.166

2.  A theory-informed systematic review of clinicians' genetic testing practices.

Authors:  Jean L Paul; Hanna Leslie; Alison H Trainer; Clara Gaff
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2018-06-11       Impact factor: 4.246

3.  Preferences for genetic testing for colorectal cancer within a population-based screening program: a discrete choice experiment.

Authors:  Jorien Veldwijk; Mattijs S Lambooij; Frank G J Kallenberg; Henk J van Kranen; Annelien L Bredenoord; Evelien Dekker; Henriëtte A Smit; G Ardine de Wit
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2015-06-03       Impact factor: 4.246

4.  Value of Genetic Testing for Hereditary Colorectal Cancer in a Probability-Based US Online Sample.

Authors:  Sara J Knight; Ateesha F Mohamed; Deborah A Marshall; Uri Ladabaum; Kathryn A Phillips; Judith M E Walsh
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2015-01-14       Impact factor: 2.583

5.  Valuations of genetic test information for treatable conditions: the case of colorectal cancer screening.

Authors:  Vikram Kilambi; F Reed Johnson; Juan Marcos González; Ateesha F Mohamed
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2014-11-06       Impact factor: 5.725

6.  Patient preferences for massively parallel sequencing genetic testing of colorectal cancer risk: a discrete choice experiment.

Authors:  Deirdre Weymann; David L Veenstra; Gail P Jarvik; Dean A Regier
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2018-05-25       Impact factor: 4.246

7.  How psychological distance of a study sample in discrete choice experiments affects preference measurement: a colorectal cancer screening case study.

Authors:  Jorien Veldwijk; Catharina G M Groothuis-Oudshoorn; Ulrik Kihlbom; Sophie Langenskiöld; Evelien Dekker; Frank G J Kallenberg; G Ardine de Wit; Mattijs S Lambooij
Journal:  Patient Prefer Adherence       Date:  2019-02-12       Impact factor: 2.711

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.