Literature DB >> 22473221

The influence of health care policies and health care system distrust on willingness to undergo genetic testing.

Katrina Armstrong1, Mary Putt, Chanita Hughes Halbert, David Grande, Jerome Sanford Schwartz, Kaijun Liao, Noora Marcus, Mirar Bristol Demeter, Judy Shea.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: As the potential role of genetic testing in disease prevention and management grows, so does concern about differences in uptake of genetic testing across social and racial groups. Characteristics of how genetic tests are delivered may influence willingness to undergo testing and, if they affect population subgroups differently, alter disparities in testing.
METHODS: Conjoint analysis study of the effect of 3 characteristics of genetic test delivery (ie, attributes) on willingness to undergo genetic testing for cancer risk. Data were collected using a random digit dialing survey of 128 African American and 209 white individuals living in the United States. Measures included conjoint scenarios, the Revised Health Care System Distrust Scale (including the values and competence subscales), health insurance coverage, and sociodemographic characteristics. The 3 attributes studied were disclosure of test results to the health insurer, provision of the test by a specialist or primary care doctor, and race-specific or race-neutral marketing.
RESULTS: In adjusted analyses, disclosure of test results to insurers, having to get the test from a specialist, and race-specific marketing were all inversely associated with willingness to undergo the genetic test, with the greatest effect for the disclosure attribute. Racial differences in willingness to undergo testing were not statistically significant (P=0.07) and the effect of the attributes on willingness to undergo testing did not vary by patient race. However, the decrease in willingness to undergo testing with insurance disclosure was greater among individuals with high values distrust (P=0.03), and the decrease in willingness to undergo testing from specialist access was smaller among individuals with high competence distrust (P=0.03).
CONCLUSIONS: Several potentially modifiable characteristics of how genetic tests are delivered are associated with willingness to undergo testing. The effect of 2 of these characteristics vary according to the level of health care system distrust, suggesting that policy decisions about delivery of genetic testing may influence differences in uptake across patient subgroups defined by levels of distrust rather than by race.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22473221      PMCID: PMC3360826          DOI: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e31824d748b

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Care        ISSN: 0025-7079            Impact factor:   2.983


  45 in total

1.  Using conjoint analysis to elicit preferences for health care.

Authors:  M Ryan; S Farrar
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2000-06-03

2.  A role for conjoint analysis in technology assessment in health care?

Authors:  M Ryan
Journal:  Int J Technol Assess Health Care       Date:  1999       Impact factor: 2.188

3.  Factors associated with decisions about clinical BRCA1/2 testing.

Authors:  K Armstrong; K Calzone; J Stopfer; G Fitzgerald; J Coyne; B Weber
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2000-11       Impact factor: 4.254

4.  Measuring what people value: a comparison of "attitude" and "preference" surveys.

Authors:  Kathryn A Phillips; F Reed Johnson; Tara Maddala
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 3.402

5.  Unequal treatment: confronting racial and ethnic disparities in health care.

Authors:  Alan Nelson
Journal:  J Natl Med Assoc       Date:  2002-08       Impact factor: 1.798

Review 6.  Stated preference methods in health care evaluation: an emerging methodological paradigm in health economics.

Authors:  John F P Bridges
Journal:  Appl Health Econ Health Policy       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 2.561

7.  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

8.  The path to personalized medicine.

Authors:  Margaret A Hamburg; Francis S Collins
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2010-06-15       Impact factor: 91.245

9.  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

10.  A population-based study of Ashkenazi Jewish women's attitudes toward genetic discrimination and BRCA1/2 testing.

Authors:  Lisa Soleymani Lehmann; Jane C Weeks; Neil Klar; Judy E Garber
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2002 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 8.822

View more
  21 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.  Current Status and Future Opportunities in Lung Precision Medicine Research with a Focus on Biomarkers. An American Thoracic Society/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Research Statement.

Authors:  Ann Chen Wu; James P Kiley; Patricia J Noel; Shashi Amur; Esteban G Burchard; John P Clancy; Joshua Galanter; Maki Inada; Tiffanie K Jones; Jonathan A Kropski; James E Loyd; Lawrence M Nogee; Benjamin A Raby; Angela J Rogers; David A Schwartz; Don D Sin; Avrum Spira; Scott T Weiss; Lisa R Young; Blanca E Himes
Journal:  Am J Respir Crit Care Med       Date:  2018-12-15       Impact factor: 21.405

3.  Bumps along the translational pathway: anticipating uptake of tailored smoking cessation treatment.

Authors:  Alexandra Elizabeth Shields; Mehdi Najafzadeh; Anna Boonin Schachter
Journal:  Per Med       Date:  2013-11-01       Impact factor: 2.512

4.  Racial minority group interest in direct-to-consumer genetic testing: findings from the PGen study.

Authors:  Latrice Landry; Daiva Elena Nielsen; Deanna Alexis Carere; J Scott Roberts; Robert C Green
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2017-09-04

5.  Public Mistrust of the U.S. Health Care System's Profit Motives: Mixed-Methods Results from a Randomized Controlled Trial.

Authors:  Jennifer Richmond; Wizdom Powell; Maureen Maurer; Rikki Mangrum; Marthe R Gold; Ela Pathak-Sen; Manshu Yang; Kristin L Carman
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2017-09-05       Impact factor: 5.128

6.  Numeracy and Understanding of Quantitative Aspects of Predictive Models: A Pilot Study.

Authors:  Gary E Weissman; Kuldeep N Yadav; Vanessa Madden; Katherine R Courtright; Joanna L Hart; David A Asch; Marilyn M Schapira; Scott D Halpern
Journal:  Appl Clin Inform       Date:  2018-08-29       Impact factor: 2.342

7.  Research Participants' Preferences for Hypothetical Secondary Results from Genomic Research.

Authors:  Julia Wynn; Josue Martinez; Jimmy Duong; Codruta Chiuzan; Jo C Phelan; Abby Fyer; Robert L Klitzman; Paul S Appelbaum; Wendy K Chung
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2016-12-29       Impact factor: 2.537

Review 8.  Understanding patient and provider perceptions and expectations of genomic medicine.

Authors:  Michael J Hall; Andrea D Forman; Susan V Montgomery; Kim L Rainey; Mary B Daly
Journal:  J Surg Oncol       Date:  2014-07-03       Impact factor: 3.454

9.  Deleterious BRCA1/2 mutations in an urban population of Black women.

Authors:  Filipa Lynce; Karen Lisa Smith; Julie Stein; Tiffani DeMarco; Yiru Wang; Hongkun Wang; Melissa Fries; Beth N Peshkin; Claudine Isaacs
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2015-08-07       Impact factor: 4.872

10.  Views of Black nurses toward genetic research and testing.

Authors:  Yolanda M Powell-Young; Ida J Spruill
Journal:  J Nurs Scholarsh       Date:  2013-03-07       Impact factor: 3.176

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.