Literature DB >> 25427996

Prevalence and correlates of receiving and sharing high-penetrance cancer genetic test results: findings from the Health Information National Trends Survey.

Jennifer M Taber1, Christine Q Chang, Tram K Lam, Elizabeth M Gillanders, Jada G Hamilton, Sheri D Schully.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND/AIMS: The aim of this study was to explore the prevalence and correlates of receiving and sharing high-penetrance cancer genetic test results.
METHODS: Participants completed the population-based, cross-sectional 2013 Health Information National Trends Survey. We examined sociodemographic characteristics of participants reporting having had BRCA1/2 or Lynch syndrome genetic testing, and sociodemographic and psychosocial correlates of sharing test results with health professionals and family members.
RESULTS: Participants who underwent BRCA1/2 or Lynch syndrome genetic testing (n = 77; 2.42% of respondents) were more likely to be female and to have a family or personal history of cancer than those not undergoing testing. Approximately three-quarters of participants shared results with health professionals and three-quarters with their family; only 4% did not share results with anyone. Participants who shared results with health professionals reported greater optimism, self-efficacy for health management, and trust in information from their doctors. Participants who shared results with their family were more likely to be female and to have a personal history of cancer, and had greater self-efficacy for health management, perceived less ambiguity in cancer prevention recommendations, and lower cancer prevention fatalism.
CONCLUSIONS: We identified several novel psychosocial correlates of sharing genetic information. Health professionals may use this information to identify patients less likely to share information with at-risk family members.
© 2014 S. Karger AG, Basel

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25427996      PMCID: PMC4405401          DOI: 10.1159/000368745

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Public Health Genomics        ISSN: 1662-4246            Impact factor:   2.000


  45 in total

1.  Racial and ethnic differences in direct-to-consumer genetic tests awareness in HINTS 2007: sociodemographic and numeracy correlates.

Authors:  Aisha T Langford; Ken Resnicow; J Scott Roberts; Brian J Zikmund-Fisher
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2012-01-21       Impact factor: 2.537

2.  Distinguishing among perceived control, perceived difficulty, and self-efficacy as determinants of intentions and behaviours.

Authors:  W M Rodgers; M Conner; T C Murray
Journal:  Br J Soc Psychol       Date:  2007-10-17

3.  Communication of BRCA1 and BRCA2 genetic test results to health care providers following genetic testing at a tertiary care center.

Authors:  K Ready; B K Arun; K M Schmeler; A Uyei; J K Litton; K H Lu; C C Sun; S K Peterson
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 2.375

4.  Social cognitive theory: an agentic perspective.

Authors:  A Bandura
Journal:  Annu Rev Psychol       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 24.137

5.  Genetic heterogeneity and penetrance analysis of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes in breast cancer families. The Breast Cancer Linkage Consortium.

Authors:  D Ford; D F Easton; M Stratton; S Narod; D Goldgar; P Devilee; D T Bishop; B Weber; G Lenoir; J Chang-Claude; H Sobol; M D Teare; J Struewing; A Arason; S Scherneck; J Peto; T R Rebbeck; P Tonin; S Neuhausen; R Barkardottir; J Eyfjord; H Lynch; B A Ponder; S A Gayther; M Zelada-Hedman
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  1998-03       Impact factor: 11.025

6.  Characteristics of genomic test consumers who spontaneously share results with their health care provider.

Authors:  Burcu F Darst; Lisa Madlensky; Nicholas J Schork; Eric J Topol; Cinnamon S Bloss
Journal:  Health Commun       Date:  2013-02-05

7.  Risk assessment, genetic counseling, and genetic testing for BRCA-related cancer in women: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.

Authors:  Virginia A Moyer
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2014-02-18       Impact factor: 25.391

8.  Understanding of BRCA1/2 genetic tests results: the importance of objective and subjective numeracy.

Authors:  Yaniv Hanoch; Talya Miron-Shatz; Jonathan J Rolison; Elissa Ozanne
Journal:  Psychooncology       Date:  2014-04-14       Impact factor: 3.894

9.  Patients' understanding of and responses to multiplex genetic susceptibility test results.

Authors:  Kimberly A Kaphingst; Colleen M McBride; Christopher Wade; Sharon Hensley Alford; Robert Reid; Eric Larson; Andreas D Baxevanis; Lawrence C Brody
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2012-07       Impact factor: 8.822

10.  Communication of genetic test results to family and health-care providers following disclosure of research results.

Authors:  Kristi D Graves; Pamela S Sinicrope; Mary Jane Esplen; Susan K Peterson; Christi A Patten; Jan Lowery; Frank A Sinicrope; Sandra K Nigon; Joyce Borgen; Sherri Sheinfeld Gorin; Louise A Keogh; Noralane M Lindor
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2013-10-03       Impact factor: 8.822

View more
  12 in total

1.  Assessing Genetic Literacy Awareness and Knowledge Gaps in the US Population: Results from the Health Information National Trends Survey.

Authors:  Melinda Krakow; Chelsea L Ratcliff; Bradford W Hesse; Alexandra J Greenberg-Worisek
Journal:  Public Health Genomics       Date:  2018-05-31       Impact factor: 2.000

2.  Engagement with Genetic Information and Uptake of Genetic Testing: the Role of Trust and Personal Cancer History.

Authors:  Megan C Roberts; Jennifer M Taber; William M Klein
Journal:  J Cancer Educ       Date:  2018-08       Impact factor: 2.037

3.  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

Review 4.  Primary care providers' cancer genetic testing-related knowledge, attitudes, and communication behaviors: A systematic review and research agenda.

Authors:  Jada G Hamilton; Ekland Abdiwahab; Heather M Edwards; Min-Lin Fang; Andrew Jdayani; Erica S Breslau
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2016-12-19       Impact factor: 5.128

5.  Does family communication matter? Exploring knowledge of breast cancer genetics in cancer families.

Authors:  Deborah O Himes; Sarah H Davis; Jane H Lassetter; Neil E Peterson; Margaret F Clayton; Wendy C Birmingham; Anita Y Kinney
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2019-03-15

6.  Do research participants share genomic screening results with family members?

Authors:  Julia Wynn; Hila Milo Rasouly; Tania Vasquez-Loarte; Akilan M Saami; Robyn Weiss; Sonja I Ziniel; Paul S Appelbaum; Ellen Wright Clayton; Kurt D Christensen; David Fasel; Robert C Green; Heather S Hain; Margaret Harr; Christin Hoell; Iftikhar J Kullo; Kathleen A Leppig; Melanie F Myers; Joel E Pacyna; Emma F Perez; Cynthia A Prows; Alanna Kulchak Rahm; Gemme Campbell-Salome; Richard R Sharp; Maureen E Smith; Georgia L Wiesner; Janet L Williams; Carrie L Blout Zawatsky; Ali G Gharavi; Wendy K Chung; Ingrid A Holm
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2021-10-19       Impact factor: 2.717

7.  Psychosocial and Clinical Factors Associated with Family Communication of Cancer Genetic Test Results among Women Diagnosed with Breast Cancer at a Young Age.

Authors:  Ashley Elrick; Sato Ashida; Jennifer Ivanovich; Sarah Lyons; Barbara B Biesecker; Melody S Goodman; Kimberly A Kaphingst
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2016-07-16       Impact factor: 2.537

8.  Quantifying family dissemination and identifying barriers to communication of risk information in Australian BRCA families.

Authors:  Emma Healey; Natalie Taylor; Sian Greening; Claire E Wakefield; Linda Warwick; Rachel Williams; Kathy Tucker
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2017-05-11       Impact factor: 8.822

9.  "It would be so much easier": health system-led genetic risk notification-feasibility and acceptability of cascade screening in an integrated system.

Authors:  Nora B Henrikson; Paula R Blasi; Stephanie M Fullerton; Jane Grafton; Kathleen A Leppig; Gail P Jarvik; Eric B Larson
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2019-03-06

10.  Reactions to clinical reinterpretation of a gene variant by participants in a sequencing study.

Authors:  Jennifer M Taber; William M P Klein; Katie L Lewis; Jennifer J Johnston; Leslie G Biesecker; Barbara B Biesecker
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2017-07-27       Impact factor: 8.822

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.