Literature DB >> 23128581

On averages and peaks: how do people integrate attitudes about multiple diseases to reach a decision about multiplex genetic testing?

Shoshana Shiloh1, Christopher H Wade2, J Scott Roberts3, Sharon Hensley Alford4, Barbara B Biesecker5.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The aim of the current study was to learn how people integrate attitudes about multiple health conditions to make a decision about genetic testing uptake.
METHODS: This study recruited 294 healthy young adults from a parent research project, the Multiplex Initiative, conducted in a large health care system in Detroit, Michigan. All participants were offered a multiplex genetic test that assessed risk for 8 common health conditions (e.g., type 2 diabetes). Data were collected from a baseline survey, a web-based survey, and at the time of testing.
RESULTS: Averaging attitudes across diseases predicted test uptake but did not contribute beyond peak attitudes, the highest attitude toward testing for a single disease in the set. Peak attitudes were found sufficient to predict test uptake. LIMITATIONS: The effects of set size and mode of presentation could not be examined because these factors were constant in the multiplex test offered.
CONCLUSIONS: These findings support theories suggesting that people use representative evaluations in attitude formation. The implication of these findings for further developments in genetic testing is that the communication and impact of multiplex testing may need to be considered in the light of a bias toward peak attitudes.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23128581      PMCID: PMC3799841          DOI: 10.1177/0272989X12464432

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Decis Making        ISSN: 0272-989X            Impact factor:   2.583


  31 in total

1.  Lay Attitudes toward Genetic Testing for Susceptibility to Inherited Diseases.

Authors:  J S Shaw; K L Bassi
Journal:  J Health Psychol       Date:  2001-07

2.  Origins of the sample-size effect in explicit evaluative judgment.

Authors:  Martina Kaufmann; Tilmann Betsch
Journal:  Exp Psychol       Date:  2009

3.  Participation in genetic testing research varies by social group.

Authors:  Sharon Hensley Alford; Colleen M McBride; Robert J Reid; Eric B Larson; Andreas D Baxevanis; Lawrence C Brody
Journal:  Public Health Genomics       Date:  2010-03-18       Impact factor: 2.000

4.  Comparison of individuals opting for BRCA1/2 or HNPCC genetic susceptibility testing with regard to coping, illness perceptions, illness experiences, family system characteristics and hereditary cancer distress.

Authors:  Iris van Oostrom; Hanne Meijers-Heijboer; Hugo J Duivenvoorden; Annette H J T Bröcker-Vriends; Christi J van Asperen; Rolf H Sijmons; Caroline Seynaeve; Arthur R Van Gool; Jan G M Klijn; Aad Tibben
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2006-07-26

5.  Genomic information as a behavioral health intervention: can it work?

Authors:  Cinnamon S Bloss; Lisa Madlensky; Nicholas J Schork; Eric J Topol
Journal:  Per Med       Date:  2011-11       Impact factor: 2.512

6.  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

7.  The implications of genetic susceptibility for the prevention of colorectal cancer: a qualitative study of older adults' understanding.

Authors:  Jayne Lucke; Wayne Hall; Bree Ryan; Neville Owen
Journal:  Community Genet       Date:  2008-05-20

8.  Susceptibility genes and the question of embodied identity.

Authors:  Margaret Lock; Julia Freeman; Gillian Chilibeck; Briony Beveridge; Miriam Padolsky
Journal:  Med Anthropol Q       Date:  2007-09

9.  Considerations for designing a prototype genetic test for use in translational research.

Authors:  C H Wade; C M McBride; S L R Kardia; L C Brody
Journal:  Public Health Genomics       Date:  2009-09-03       Impact factor: 2.000

10.  Characteristics of users of online personalized genomic risk assessments: implications for physician-patient interactions.

Authors:  Colleen M McBride; Sharon Hensley Alford; Robert J Reid; Eric B Larson; Andreas D Baxevanis; Lawrence C Brody
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 8.822

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.