Literature DB >> 22694298

Effects of informed consent for individual genome sequencing on relevant knowledge.

K A Kaphingst1, F M Facio, M-R Cheng, S Brooks, H Eidem, A Linn, B B Biesecker, L G Biesecker.   

Abstract

Increasing availability of individual genomic information suggests that patients will need knowledge about genome sequencing to make informed decisions, but prior research is limited. In this study, we examined genome sequencing knowledge before and after informed consent among 311 participants enrolled in the ClinSeq™ sequencing study. An exploratory factor analysis of knowledge items yielded two factors (sequencing limitations knowledge; sequencing benefits knowledge). In multivariable analysis, high pre-consent sequencing limitations knowledge scores were significantly related to education [odds ratio (OR): 8.7, 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.45-31.10 for post-graduate education, and OR: 3.9; 95% CI: 1.05, 14.61 for college degree compared with less than college degree] and race/ethnicity (OR: 2.4, 95% CI: 1.09, 5.38 for non-Hispanic Whites compared with other racial/ethnic groups). Mean values increased significantly between pre- and post-consent for the sequencing limitations knowledge subscale (6.9-7.7, p < 0.0001) and sequencing benefits knowledge subscale (7.0-7.5, p < 0.0001); increase in knowledge did not differ by sociodemographic characteristics. This study highlights gaps in genome sequencing knowledge and underscores the need to target educational efforts toward participants with less education or from minority racial/ethnic groups. The informed consent process improved genome sequencing knowledge. Future studies could examine how genome sequencing knowledge influences informed decision making.
© 2012 John Wiley & Sons A/S.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22694298      PMCID: PMC3469729          DOI: 10.1111/j.1399-0004.2012.01909.x

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


  32 in total

1.  The Genetic Knowledge Index: developing a standard measure of genetic knowledge.

Authors:  L A Furr; S E Kelly
Journal:  Genet Test       Date:  1999

2.  A measure of informed choice.

Authors:  T M Marteau; E Dormandy; S Michie
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 3.377

3.  Ethnic differences in knowledge and attitudes about BRCA1 testing in women at increased risk.

Authors:  C Hughes; A Gomez-Caminero; J Benkendorf; J Kerner; C Isaacs; J Barter; C Lerman
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  1997 Sep-Oct

4.  General public's knowledge, interest and information needs related to genetic cancer: an exploratory study.

Authors:  I Mesters; A Ausems; H De Vries
Journal:  Eur J Cancer Prev       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 2.497

5.  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

6.  Behavioral health outcomes associated with religious faith and media exposure about human genetics.

Authors:  Roxanne Parrott; Kami Silk; Janice Raup Krieger; Tina Harris; Celeste Condit
Journal:  Health Commun       Date:  2004

7.  Public experiences, knowledge and expectations about medical genetics and the use of genetic information.

Authors:  Lidewij Henneman; Danielle R M Timmermans; Gerrit van der Wal
Journal:  Community Genet       Date:  2004

8.  Effect of a computer-based decision aid on knowledge, perceptions, and intentions about genetic testing for breast cancer susceptibility: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Michael J Green; Susan K Peterson; Maria Wagner Baker; Gregory R Harper; Lois C Friedman; Wendy S Rubinstein; David T Mauger
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2004-07-28       Impact factor: 56.272

9.  Cancer genetics knowledge and beliefs and receipt of results in Ashkenazi Jewish individuals receiving counseling for BRCA1/2 mutations.

Authors:  Kimberly Kelly; Howard Leventhal; Monica Marvin; Deborah Toppmeyer; Jill Baran; Marvin Schwalb
Journal:  Cancer Control       Date:  2004 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 3.302

10.  Informed choice: understanding knowledge in the context of screening uptake.

Authors:  Susan Michie; Elizabeth Dormandy; Theresa M Marteau
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2003-07
View more
  61 in total

1.  Perceived ambiguity as a barrier to intentions to learn genome sequencing results.

Authors:  Jennifer M Taber; William M P Klein; Rebecca A Ferrer; Paul K J Han; Katie L Lewis; Leslie G Biesecker; Barbara B Biesecker
Journal:  J Behav Med       Date:  2015-05-24

2.  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

Review 3.  Ethical considerations in genomic testing for hematologic disorders.

Authors:  Jonathan M Marron; Steven Joffe
Journal:  Blood       Date:  2017-06-09       Impact factor: 22.113

4.  Factors affecting breast cancer patients' need for genetic risk information: From information insufficiency to information need.

Authors:  Soo Jung Hong; Barbara Biesecker; Jennifer Ivanovich; Melody Goodman; Kimberly A Kaphingst
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2019-01-24       Impact factor: 2.537

5.  Informed consent for exome sequencing research in families with genetic disease: the emerging issue of incidental findings.

Authors:  Amanda L Bergner; Juli Bollinger; Karen S Raraigh; Crystal Tichnell; Brittney Murray; Carrie Lynn Blout; Aida Bytyci Telegrafi; Cynthia A James
Journal:  Am J Med Genet A       Date:  2014-09-22       Impact factor: 2.802

6.  Seeing Beyond the Margins: Challenges to Informed Inclusion of Vulnerable Populations in Research.

Authors:  Sarah Gehlert; Jessica Mozersky
Journal:  J Law Med Ethics       Date:  2018-03-27       Impact factor: 1.718

7.  Should pretest genetic counselling be required for patients pursuing genomic sequencing? Results from a survey of participants in a large genomic implementation study.

Authors:  Joel E Pacyna; Carmen Radecki Breitkopf; Sarah M Jenkins; Erica J Sutton; Caroline Horrow; Iftikhar J Kullo; Richard R Sharp
Journal:  J Med Genet       Date:  2018-12-22       Impact factor: 6.318

8.  Consent to a Postmortem Tissue Procurement Study: Distinguishing Family Decision Makers' Knowledge of the Genotype-Tissue Expression Project.

Authors:  Laura A Siminoff; Maureen Wilson-Genderson; Heather M Gardiner; Maghboeba Mosavel; Kathryn Laura Barker
Journal:  Biopreserv Biobank       Date:  2018-05-10       Impact factor: 2.300

9.  Preferences for in-person disclosure: Patients declining telephone disclosure characteristics and outcomes in the multicenter Communication Of GENetic Test Results by Telephone study.

Authors:  Nina Beri; Linda J Patrick-Miller; Brian L Egleston; Michael J Hall; Susan M Domchek; Mary B Daly; Pamela Ganschow; Generosa Grana; Olufunmilayo I Olopade; Dominique Fetzer; Amanda Brandt; Rachelle Chambers; Dana F Clark; Andrea Forman; Rikki Gaber; Cassandra Gulden; Janice Horte; Jessica Long; Terra Lucas; Shreshtha Madaan; Kristin Mattie; Danielle McKenna; Susan Montgomery; Sarah Nielsen; Jacquelyn Powers; Kim Rainey; Christina Rybak; Michelle Savage; Christina Seelaus; Jessica Stoll; Jill E Stopfer; Xinxin Shirley Yao; Angela R Bradbury
Journal:  Clin Genet       Date:  2018-12-07       Impact factor: 4.438

Review 10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.