Literature DB >> 24719248

Predictors of genetic testing decisions: a systematic review and critique of the literature.

Kate Sweeny1, Arezou Ghane, Angela M Legg, Ho Phi Huynh, Sara E Andrews.   

Abstract

Genetic testing is increasingly available in medical settings and direct-to-consumer. However, the large and growing literature on genetic testing decisions is rife with conflicting findings, inconsistent methodology, and uneven attention across test types and across predictors of genetic testing decisions. Existing reviews of the literature draw broad conclusions but sacrifice nuanced analysis that with a closer look reveals far more inconsistency than homogeny across studies. The goals of this paper are to provide a systematic review of the empirical work on predictors of genetic testing decisions, highlight areas of consistency and inconsistency, and suggest productive directions for future research. We included all studies that provided quantitative analysis of subjective (e.g., perceived risk, perceived benefits of testing) and/or objective (e.g., family history, sociodemographic variables) predictors of genetic testing interest, intentions, or uptake, which produced a sample of 115 studies. From this review, we conclude that self-reported and test-related (as opposed to disorder-related or objective) predictors are relatively consistent across studies but that theoretically-driven efforts to examine testing interest across test types are sorely needed.

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24719248     DOI: 10.1007/s10897-014-9712-9

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


  127 in total

1.  Attitudes of persons at risk and their partners toward predictive testing.

Authors:  G A Jacopini; R D'Amico; M Frontali; G Vivona
Journal:  Birth Defects Orig Artic Ser       Date:  1992

2.  An experimental investigation of factors involved in the decision to undertake genetic testing for schizophrenia.

Authors:  P M Salkovskis; K A Rimes; J Bolton; A L Wroe
Journal:  J Ment Health       Date:  2010-04

3.  Interest in genetic testing among first-degree relatives of colorectal cancer patients.

Authors:  A Y Kinney; Y A Choi; B DeVellis; E Kobetz; R C Millikan; R S Sandler
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2000-04       Impact factor: 5.043

4.  Efficacy of the health belief model for predicting intention to pursue genetic testing for colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Amanda Cyr; Tim Allen Dunnagan; George Haynes
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2009-11-10       Impact factor: 2.537

5.  Non-uptake of predictive genetic testing for BRCA1/2 among relatives of known carriers: attributes, cancer worry, and barriers to testing in a multicenter clinical cohort.

Authors:  C Foster; D G R Evans; R Eeles; D Eccles; S Ashley; L Brooks; T Cole; J Cook; R Davidson; H Gregory; J Mackay; P J Morrison; M Watson
Journal:  Genet Test       Date:  2004

6.  Generalized anxiety disorder: a preliminary test of a conceptual model.

Authors:  M J Dugas; F Gagnon; R Ladouceur; M H Freeston
Journal:  Behav Res Ther       Date:  1998-02

7.  Pilot study on patients' and spouses' attitudes toward potential genetic testing for bipolar disorder.

Authors:  C L Trippitelli; K R Jamison; M F Folstein; J J Bartko; J R DePaulo
Journal:  Am J Psychiatry       Date:  1998-07       Impact factor: 18.112

8.  Disparities in BRCA testing: when insurance coverage is not a barrier.

Authors:  Windy Olaya; Pamela Esquivel; Jan H Wong; John W Morgan; Adam Freeberg; Sharmila Roy-Chowdhury; Sharon S Lum
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  2009-10       Impact factor: 2.565

9.  Adolescents and genetic testing: what do they think about it?

Authors:  Asaff Harel; Dianne Abuelo; Alessandra Kazura
Journal:  J Adolesc Health       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 5.012

10.  Self-testing for cancer: a community survey.

Authors:  Sue Wilson; Angela V Ryan; Sheila M Greenfield; Sue C Clifford; Roger L Holder; Helen M Pattison; David A Fitzmaurice; Richard J McManus
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2008-04-14       Impact factor: 4.430

View more
  22 in total

1.  Dispositional optimism and perceived risk interact to predict intentions to learn genome sequencing results.

Authors:  Jennifer M Taber; William M P Klein; Rebecca A Ferrer; Katie L Lewis; Leslie G Biesecker; Barbara B Biesecker
Journal:  Health Psychol       Date:  2014-10-13       Impact factor: 4.267

2.  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

3.  Measuring genetic knowledge: a brief survey instrument for adolescents and adults.

Authors:  S M Fitzgerald-Butt; A Bodine; K M Fry; J Ash; A N Zaidi; V Garg; C A Gerhardt; K L McBride
Journal:  Clin Genet       Date:  2015-06-29       Impact factor: 4.438

4.  Genetic testing preferences in families containing multiple individuals with epilepsy.

Authors:  Janice O Okeke; Virginia E Tangel; Shawn T Sorge; Dale C Hesdorffer; Melodie R Winawer; Jeff Goldsmith; Jo C Phelan; Wendy K Chung; Sara Shostak; Ruth Ottman
Journal:  Epilepsia       Date:  2014-09-29       Impact factor: 5.864

5.  Sequencing Newborns: A Call for Nuanced Use of Genomic Technologies.

Authors:  Josephine Johnston; John D Lantos; Aaron Goldenberg; Flavia Chen; Erik Parens; Barbara A Koenig
Journal:  Hastings Cent Rep       Date:  2018-07       Impact factor: 2.683

6.  Looking for Trouble: Preventive Genomic Sequencing in the General Population and the Role of Patient Choice.

Authors:  Gabriel Lázaro-Muñoz; John M Conley; Arlene M Davis; Marcia Van Riper; Rebecca L Walker; Eric T Juengst
Journal:  Am J Bioeth       Date:  2015       Impact factor: 11.229

7.  Genetic counseling, genetic testing, and risk perceptions for breast and colorectal cancer: Results from the 2015 National Health Interview Survey.

Authors:  Erin Turbitt; Megan C Roberts; Jennifer M Taber; Erika A Waters; Timothy S McNeel; Barbara B Biesecker; William M P Klein
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2019-02-25       Impact factor: 4.018

8.  Behavioral Economics: A New Lens for Understanding Genomic Decision Making.

Authors:  Scott Emory Moore; Holley H Ulbrich; Kenneth Hepburn; Bonnie Holaday; Rachel Mayo; Julia Sharp; Rosanne H Pruitt
Journal:  J Nurs Scholarsh       Date:  2018-04-24       Impact factor: 3.176

9.  The effect of referral for genetic counseling on genetic testing and surgical prevention in women at high risk for ovarian cancer: Results from a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Charles W Drescher; J David Beatty; Robert Resta; M Robyn Andersen; Kate Watabayashi; Jason Thorpe; Sarah Hawley; Hannah Purkey; Jessica Chubak; Nancy Hanson; Diana S M Buist; Nicole Urban
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2016-07-22       Impact factor: 6.860

10.  Genetic Testing in a Population-Based Sample of Breast and Ovarian Cancer Survivors from the REACH Randomized Trial: Cost Barriers and Moderators of Counseling Mode.

Authors:  Laurie E Steffen; Ruofei Du; Amanda Gammon; Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Wendy K Kohlmann; Ji-Hyun Lee; Saundra S Buys; Antoinette M Stroup; Rebecca A Campo; Kristina G Flores; Belinda Vicuña; Marc D Schwartz; Anita Y Kinney
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2017-09-29       Impact factor: 4.254

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.