Literature DB >> 23952534

The future in clinical genetics: affective forecasting biases in patient and clinician decision making.

S A Peters1, S M Laham, N Pachter, I M Winship.   

Abstract

When clinicians facilitate and patients make decisions about predictive genetic testing, they often base their choices on the predicted emotional consequences of positive and negative test results. Research from psychology and decision making suggests that such predictions may often be biased. Work on affective forecasting-predicting one's future emotional states-shows that people tend to overestimate the impact of (especially negative) emotional events on their well-being; a phenomenon termed the impact bias. In this article, we review the causes and consequences of the impact bias in medical decision making, with a focus on applying such findings to predictive testing in clinical genetics. We also recommend strategies for reducing the impact bias and consider the ethical and practical implications of doing so.
© 2013 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  affective forecasting; decision making; impact bias; predictive testing

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23952534     DOI: 10.1111/cge.12255

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


  16 in total

1.  On What We Have Learned and Still Need to Learn about the Psychosocial Impacts of Genetic Testing.

Authors:  Erik Parens; Paul S Appelbaum
Journal:  Hastings Cent Rep       Date:  2019-05       Impact factor: 2.683

2.  Ethical signposts for clinical geneticists in secondary variant and incidental finding disclosure discussions.

Authors:  Gabrielle M Christenhusz; Koenraad Devriendt; Hilde Van Esch; Kris Dierickx
Journal:  Med Health Care Philos       Date:  2015-08

3.  Reconceptualizing harms and benefits in the genomic age.

Authors:  Anya E R Prince; Benjamin E Berkman
Journal:  Per Med       Date:  2018-09-27       Impact factor: 2.512

4.  Scrutinizing the Right Not to Know.

Authors:  Benjamin E Berkman; Sara Chandros Hull; Leslie G Biesecker
Journal:  Am J Bioeth       Date:  2015       Impact factor: 11.229

5.  Risk Perception and Psychological Distress in Genetic Counselling for Hereditary Breast and/or Ovarian Cancer.

Authors:  G Cicero; R De Luca; P Dorangricchia; G Lo Coco; C Guarnaccia; D Fanale; V Calò; A Russo
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2017-03-10       Impact factor: 2.537

6.  Moving beyond categorization to understand affective influences on real world health decisions.

Authors:  Rebecca A Ferrer; Erin M Ellis
Journal:  Soc Personal Psychol Compass       Date:  2019-11-25

7.  "You Can Carry the Torch Now:" A Qualitative Analysis of Parents' Experiences Caring for a Child with Trisomy 13 or 18.

Authors:  Joshua D Arthur; Divya Gupta
Journal:  HEC Forum       Date:  2017-09

Review 8.  Ethics of genetic and biomarker test disclosures in neurodegenerative disease prevention trials.

Authors:  Scott Y H Kim; Jason Karlawish; Benjamin E Berkman
Journal:  Neurology       Date:  2015-03-11       Impact factor: 9.910

9.  The role of current affect, anticipated affect and spontaneous self-affirmation in decisions to receive self-threatening genetic risk information.

Authors:  Rebecca A Ferrer; Jennifer M Taber; William M P Klein; Peter R Harris; Katie L Lewis; Leslie G Biesecker
Journal:  Cogn Emot       Date:  2014-12-08

10.  Women's concerns about the emotional impact of awareness of heritable breast cancer risk and its implications for their children.

Authors:  Suzanne C O'Neill; Darren Mays; Andrea Farkas Patenaude; Judy E Garber; Tiffani A DeMarco; Beth N Peshkin; Katherine A Schneider; Kenneth P Tercyak
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2014-08-07
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.