Literature DB >> 24798746

Influence of individual differences in disease perception on consumer response to direct-to-consumer genomic testing.

D L Boeldt1, N J Schork, E J Topol, C S Bloss.   

Abstract

Individuals who undergo multiplex direct-to-consumer (DTC) genomic testing receive genetic risk results for multiple conditions. To date, research has not investigated the influence of individual differences in disease perceptions among consumers on testing outcomes. A total of 2037 participants received DTC genomic testing and completed baseline and follow-up surveys assessing disease perceptions and health behaviors. Participants were asked to indicate their most feared disease of those tested. Perceived seriousness and controllability of the disease via lifestyle or medical intervention were assessed. Participants most frequently reported heart attack (19.1%) and Alzheimer's disease (18.6%) as their most feared disease. Perceived seriousness and control over the feared disease both influenced response to DTC genomic testing. Greater perceived seriousness and diminished perceived control were associated with higher, but not clinically significant levels of anxiety and distress. In some cases these associations were modified by genetic risk. No significant associations were observed for diet, exercise and screening behaviors. Individual differences in disease perceptions influence psychological outcomes following DTC genomic testing. Higher perceived seriousness may make a consumer more psychologically sensitive to test results and greater perceived control may protect against adverse psychological outcomes. Findings may inform development of educational and counseling services.
© 2014 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Health Belief Model; direct-to-consumer; direct-to-consumer outcomes; genetic testing; genomic risk assessment; personalized medicine; risk perceptions

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24798746      PMCID: PMC4758676          DOI: 10.1111/cge.12419

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


  20 in total

1.  1000 Genomes on the Road to Personalized Medicine.

Authors:  Amy L McGuire
Journal:  Per Med       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 2.512

2.  Effect of direct-to-consumer genomewide profiling to assess disease risk.

Authors:  Cinnamon S Bloss; Nicholas J Schork; Eric J Topol
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2011-01-12       Impact factor: 91.245

3.  Effect of direct-to-consumer genetic tests on health behaviour and anxiety: a survey of consumers and potential consumers.

Authors:  Corin Egglestone; Anne Morris; Ann O'Brien
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2013-04-03       Impact factor: 2.537

4.  Awareness and uptake of direct-to-consumer genetic testing among cancer cases, their relatives, and controls: the Northwest Cancer Genetics Network.

Authors:  Taryn O Hall; Anne D Renz; Katherine W Snapinn; Deborah J Bowen; Karen L Edwards
Journal:  Genet Test Mol Biomarkers       Date:  2012-06-25

5.  A simple method to assess exercise behavior in the community.

Authors:  G Godin; R J Shephard
Journal:  Can J Appl Sport Sci       Date:  1985-09

6.  Impact of direct-to-consumer predictive genomic testing on risk perception and worry among patients receiving routine care in a preventive health clinic.

Authors:  Katherine M James; Clayton T Cowl; Jon C Tilburt; Pamela S Sinicrope; Marguerite E Robinson; Katrin R Frimannsdottir; Kristina Tiedje; Barbara A Koenig
Journal:  Mayo Clin Proc       Date:  2011-10       Impact factor: 7.616

7.  Preferences among diseases on a genetic susceptibility test for common health conditions: an ancillary study of the multiplex initiative.

Authors:  C H Wade; S Shiloh; J S Roberts; S Hensley Alford; T M Marteau; B B Biesecker
Journal:  Public Health Genomics       Date:  2012-06-08       Impact factor: 2.000

8.  Promoting attendance at cervical cancer screening: understanding the relationship with Turkish womens' health beliefs.

Authors:  Basak Demirtas; Inci Acikgoz
Journal:  Asian Pac J Cancer Prev       Date:  2013

9.  Associations between risk perceptions and worry about common diseases: a between- and within-subjects examination.

Authors:  Shoshana Shiloh; Christopher H Wade; J Scott Roberts; Sharon Hensley Alford; Barbara B Biesecker
Journal:  Psychol Health       Date:  2012-11-05

10.  Applying a common-sense approach to fighting obesity.

Authors:  Jessica Y Breland; Ashley M Fox; Carol R Horowitz; Howard Leventhal
Journal:  J Obes       Date:  2012-06-28
View more
  16 in total

1.  The effect of genetic test-based risk information on behavioral outcomes: A critical examination of failed trials and a call to action.

Authors:  Jehannine Austin
Journal:  Am J Med Genet A       Date:  2015-08-18       Impact factor: 2.802

2.  Learning one's genetic risk changes physiology independent of actual genetic risk.

Authors:  Bradley P Turnwald; J Parker Goyer; Danielle Z Boles; Amy Silder; Scott L Delp; Alia J Crum
Journal:  Nat Hum Behav       Date:  2018-12-10

3.  EMR documentation of physician-patient communication following genomic counseling for actionable complex disease and pharmacogenomic results.

Authors:  K Sweet; A C Sturm; T Schmidlen; S Hovick; J Peng; K Manickam; A Salikhova; J McElroy; L Scheinfeldt; A E Toland; J S Roberts; M Christman
Journal:  Clin Genet       Date:  2016-07-28       Impact factor: 4.438

4.  Consumer familiarity, perspectives and expected value of personalized medicine with a focus on applications in oncology.

Authors:  Susan Garfeld; Michael P Douglas; Karen V MacDonald; Deborah A Marshall; Kathryn A Phillips
Journal:  Per Med       Date:  2015-01-01       Impact factor: 2.512

5.  A randomized trial Examining The Impact Of Communicating Genetic And Lifestyle Risks For Obesity.

Authors:  Catharine Wang; Erynn S Gordon; Tricia Norkunas; Lisa Wawak; Ching-Ti Liu; Michael Winter; Rachel S Kasper; Michael F Christman; Robert C Green; Deborah J Bowen
Journal:  Obesity (Silver Spring)       Date:  2016-12       Impact factor: 5.002

6.  Predictors of adverse psychological experiences surrounding genome-wide profiling for disease risk.

Authors:  K M Broady; K E Ormond; E J Topol; N J Schork; Cinnamon S Bloss
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2017-11-13

Review 7.  Considerations for developing regulations for direct-to-consumer genetic testing: a scoping review using the 3-I framework.

Authors:  Alexandra Cernat; Naazish S Bashir; Wendy J Ungar
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2022-02-16

8.  Teenagers and Precision Psychiatry: A Window of Opportunity.

Authors:  Maya Sabatello; Ying Chen; Carmen Fiorella Herrera; Erika Brockhoff; Jehannine Austin; Paul S Appelbaum
Journal:  Public Health Genomics       Date:  2021-01-27       Impact factor: 2.000

9.  DNA-based screening and personal health: a points to consider statement for individuals and health-care providers from the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG).

Authors:  Lora J H Bean; Maren T Scheuner; Michael F Murray; Leslie G Biesecker; Robert C Green; Kristin G Monaghan; Glenn E Palomaki; Richard R Sharp; Tracy L Trotter; Michael S Watson; Cynthia M Powell
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2021-03-31       Impact factor: 8.822

10.  Attitudes towards personal genomics among older Swiss adults: An exploratory study.

Authors:  Laura Mählmann; Christina Röcke; Angela Brand; Ernst Hafen; Effy Vayena
Journal:  Appl Transl Genom       Date:  2016-02-01
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.