Literature DB >> 22911325

"Is it really worth it to get tested?": primary care patients' impressions of predictive SNP testing for colon cancer.

Kara-Grace Leventhal1, William Tuong, Beth N Peshkin, Yasmin Salehizadeh, Mary B Fishman, Susan Eggly, Kevin FitzGerald, Marc D Schwartz, Kristi D Graves.   

Abstract

Despite significant progress in genomics research over the past decade, we remain years away from the integration of genomics into routine clinical care. As an initial step toward the implementation of genomic-based medicine, we explored primary care patients' ideas about genomic testing for common complex diseases to help develop future patient education materials and interventions to communicate genomic risk information. We conducted a mixed-methods study with participants from a large primary care clinic. Within four focus groups, we used a semi-structured discussion guide and administered brief pre- and post- discussion quantitative surveys to assess participants' interest, attitudes, and preferences related to testing and receipt of test results. Prior to the discussion, moderators presented a plain-language explanation of DNA and genetics, defined "SNP", and highlighted what is known and unknown about the risks associated with testing for SNPs related to colorectal cancer risk. We used the NVIVO 8 software package to analyze the transcripts from the focus group discussions. The majority of participants (75 %) were "very" or "somewhat interested" in receiving information from a colon cancer SNP test, even after learning about and discussing the small and still clinically uncertain change in risk conferred by SNPs. Reported interest in testing was related to degree of risk conferred, personal risk factors, family history, possible implications for managing health /disease prevention and curiosity about genetic results. Most people (85 %) preferred that genetic information be delivered in person by a healthcare or genetics professional rather than through print materials or a computer. These findings suggest that patients may look to genetic counselors, physicians or other healthcare professionals as gatekeepers of predictive genomic risk information.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22911325      PMCID: PMC3567438          DOI: 10.1007/s10897-012-9530-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Genet Couns        ISSN: 1059-7700            Impact factor:   2.537


  54 in total

1.  Genetic testing for disease susceptibilities: consequences for genetic counseling.

Authors:  Roberta A Pagon
Journal:  Trends Mol Med       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 11.951

2.  The prospect of genome-guided preventive medicine: a need and opportunity for genetic counselors.

Authors:  Julianne M O'Daniel
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2010-05-04       Impact factor: 2.537

3.  The genetics revolution and primary care pediatrics.

Authors:  Tina L Cheng; Ronald D Cohn; George J Dover
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2008-01-30       Impact factor: 56.272

4.  Potential etiologic and functional implications of genome-wide association loci for human diseases and traits.

Authors:  Lucia A Hindorff; Praveen Sethupathy; Heather A Junkins; Erin M Ramos; Jayashri P Mehta; Francis S Collins; Teri A Manolio
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2009-05-27       Impact factor: 11.205

5.  Personalized medicine in the era of genomics.

Authors:  Wylie Burke; Bruce M Psaty
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2007-10-10       Impact factor: 56.272

6.  Monitoring and blunting: validation of a questionnaire to assess styles of information seeking under threat.

Authors:  S M Miller
Journal:  J Pers Soc Psychol       Date:  1987-02

7.  Impact of BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation testing on psychologic distress in a clinic-based sample.

Authors:  Marc D Schwartz; Beth N Peshkin; Chanita Hughes; David Main; Claudine Isaacs; Caryn Lerman
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2002-01-15       Impact factor: 44.544

8.  The culture of faith and hope: patients' justifications for their high estimations of expected therapeutic benefit when enrolling in early phase oncology trials.

Authors:  Daniel P Sulmasy; Alan B Astrow; M Kai He; Damon M Seils; Neal J Meropol; Ellyn Micco; Kevin P Weinfurt
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2010-08-01       Impact factor: 6.860

9.  The rules remain the same for genomic medicine: the case against "reverse genetic exceptionalism".

Authors:  James P Evans; Wylie Burke; Muin Khoury
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 8.822

10.  Genomics and the prevention and control of common chronic diseases: emerging priorities for public health action.

Authors:  Muin J Khoury; George A Mensah
Journal:  Prev Chronic Dis       Date:  2005-03-15       Impact factor: 2.830

View more
  16 in total

1.  Looking back and moving forward: an historical perspective from laboratory genetic counselors.

Authors:  Lindsay H Zetzsche; Katrina E Kotzer; Karen E Wain
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2013-11-12       Impact factor: 2.537

2.  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

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.  Making Sense of SNPs: Women's Understanding and Experiences of Receiving a Personalized Profile of Their Breast Cancer Risks.

Authors:  Mary-Anne Young; Laura Elenor Forrest; Victoria-Mae Rasmussen; Paul James; Gillian Mitchell; Sarah Dilys Sawyer; Katrina Reeve; Nina Hallowell
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2017-11-22       Impact factor: 2.537

5.  Discussing race-related limitations of genomic testing for colon cancer risk: implications for education and counseling.

Authors:  Morgan N Butrick; Lauren Vanhusen; Kara-Grace Leventhal; Gillian W Hooker; Rachel Nusbaum; Beth N Peshkin; Yasmin Salehizadeh; Jessica Pavlick; Marc D Schwartz; Kristi D Graves
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2014-05-15       Impact factor: 4.634

6.  Universal screening for Lynch syndrome among patients with colorectal cancer: patient perspectives on screening and sharing results with at-risk relatives.

Authors:  Jessica Ezzell Hunter; Kathleen A Arnold; Jennifer E Cook; Jamilyn Zepp; Marian J Gilmore; Alan F Rope; James V Davis; Kellene M Bergen; Elizabeth Esterberg; Kristin R Muessig; Susan K Peterson; Sapna Syngal; Louise Acheson; Georgia Wiesner; Jacob Reiss; Katrina A B Goddard
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2017-07       Impact factor: 2.375

7.  Interest and informational preferences regarding genomic testing for modest increases in colorectal cancer risk.

Authors:  A E Anderson; K G Flores; W Boonyasiriwat; A Gammon; W Kohlmann; W C Birmingham; M D Schwartz; J Samadder; K Boucher; A Y Kinney
Journal:  Public Health Genomics       Date:  2014-01-14       Impact factor: 2.000

8.  Information Topics of Greatest Interest for Return of Genome Sequencing Results among Women Diagnosed with Breast Cancer at a Young Age.

Authors:  Joann Seo; Jennifer Ivanovich; Melody S Goodman; Barbara B Biesecker; Kimberly A Kaphingst
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2016-08-20       Impact factor: 2.537

Review 9.  ACTIVE SURVEILLANCE FOR PAPILLARY THYROID MICROCARCINOMA: NEW CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM.

Authors:  Grace C Haser; R Michael Tuttle; Henry K Su; Eran E Alon; Donald Bergman; Victor Bernet; Elise Brett; Rhoda Cobin; Eliza H Dewey; Gerard Doherty; Laura L Dos Reis; Jeffrey Harris; Joshua Klopper; Stephanie L Lee; Robert A Levine; Stephen J Lepore; Ilya Likhterov; Mark A Lupo; Josef Machac; Jeffrey I Mechanick; Saral Mehra; Mira Milas; Lisa A Orloff; Gregory Randolph; Tracey A Revenson; Katherine J Roberts; Douglas S Ross; Meghan E Rowe; Robert C Smallridge; David Terris; Ralph P Tufano; Mark L Urken
Journal:  Endocr Pract       Date:  2016-01-22       Impact factor: 3.443

Review 10.  Ethical, legal, and social implications of incorporating genomic information into electronic health records.

Authors:  Ribhi Hazin; Kyle B Brothers; Bradley A Malin; Barbara A Koenig; Saskia C Sanderson; Mark A Rothstein; Marc S Williams; Ellen W Clayton; Iftikhar J Kullo
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2013-09-12       Impact factor: 8.822

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.