Literature DB >> 25612474

A new approach to assessing affect and the emotional implications of personal genomic testing for common disease risk.

Suzanne C O'Neill1, Kenneth P Tercyak, Chanza Baytop, Sharon Hensley Alford, Colleen M McBride.   

Abstract

AIMS: Personal genomic testing (PGT) for common disease risk is becoming increasingly frequent, but little is known about people's array of emotional reactions to learning their genomic risk profiles and the psychological harms/benefits of PGT. We conducted a study of post-PGT affect, including positive, neutral, and negative states that may arise after testing.
METHODS: A total of 228 healthy adults received PGT for common disease variants and completed a semistructured research interview within 2 weeks of disclosure. The study participants reported how the PGT results made them feel in their own words. Using an iterative coding process, the responses were organized into three broad affective categories: negative, neutral, and positive affect.
RESULTS: Neutral affect was the most prevalent response (53.9%), followed by positive affect (26.9%) and negative affect (19.2%). We found no differences by gender, race, or education.
CONCLUSIONS: While <20% of participants reported negative affect in response to learning their genomic risk profile for common diseases, a majority experienced either neutral or positive emotions. These findings contribute to the growing evidence that PGT does not impose significant psychological harms. Moreover, they point to a need to better link theories and assessments in both emotional and cognitive processing to capitalize on PGT information for healthy behavior change.
© 2015 S. Karger AG, Basel.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25612474      PMCID: PMC4348333          DOI: 10.1159/000370101

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


  48 in total

Review 1.  Emotion.

Authors:  J T Cacioppo; W L Gardner
Journal:  Annu Rev Psychol       Date:  1999       Impact factor: 24.137

2.  Beyond bipolar conceptualizations and measures: the case of attitudes and evaluative space.

Authors:  J T Cacioppo; W L Gardner; G G Berntson
Journal:  Pers Soc Psychol Rev       Date:  1997

3.  A new definition of Genetic Counseling: National Society of Genetic Counselors' Task Force report.

Authors:  Robert Resta; Barbara Bowles Biesecker; Robin L Bennett; Sandra Blum; Susan Estabrooks Hahn; Michelle N Strecker; Janet L Williams
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 2.537

4.  How do I feel about the behavior? The interplay of affective associations with behaviors and cognitive beliefs as influences on physical activity behavior.

Authors:  Marc T Kiviniemi; Amy M Voss-Humke; April L Seifert
Journal:  Health Psychol       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 4.267

5.  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

Review 6.  Anticipating dissemination of cancer genomics in public health: a theoretical approach to psychosocial and behavioral challenges.

Authors:  Jennifer L Hay; Hendrika W Meischke; Deborah J Bowen; Joni Mayer; Jeanne Shoveller; Nancy Press; Maryam Asgari; Marianne Berwick; Wylie Burke
Journal:  Ann Behav Med       Date:  2007 Nov-Dec

Review 7.  A review of quality of life after predictive testing for and earlier identification of neurodegenerative diseases.

Authors:  Jane S Paulsen; Martha Nance; Ji-In Kim; Noelle E Carlozzi; Peter K Panegyres; Cheryl Erwin; Anita Goh; Elizabeth McCusker; Janet K Williams
Journal:  Prog Neurobiol       Date:  2013-09-11       Impact factor: 11.685

Review 8.  Psychosocial aspects of DNA testing for hereditary hemochromatosis in at-risk individuals: a systematic review.

Authors:  Joanna Picot; Jackie Bryant; Keith Cooper; Andy Clegg; Paul Roderick; William Rosenberg; Christine Patch
Journal:  Genet Test Mol Biomarkers       Date:  2009-02

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.  Patient decisions for disclosure of secondary findings among the first 200 individuals undergoing clinical diagnostic exome sequencing.

Authors:  Layla Shahmirzadi; Elizabeth C Chao; Erika Palmaer; Melissa C Parra; Sha Tang; Kelly D Farwell Gonzalez
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2013-10-10       Impact factor: 8.822

View more
  5 in total

1.  Distress, uncertainty, and positive experiences associated with receiving information on personal genomic risk of melanoma.

Authors:  Amelia K Smit; Ainsley J Newson; Megan Best; Caro-Anne Badcock; Phyllis N Butow; Judy Kirk; Kate Dunlop; Georgina Fenton; Anne E Cust
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2018-04-30       Impact factor: 4.246

2.  Barriers and Facilitators for Population Genetic Screening in Healthy Populations: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Emily C Shen; Swetha Srinivasan; Lauren E Passero; Caitlin G Allen; Madison Dixon; Kimberly Foss; Brianna Halliburton; Laura V Milko; Amelia K Smit; Rebecca Carlson; Megan C Roberts
Journal:  Front Genet       Date:  2022-07-04       Impact factor: 4.772

Review 3.  Behavioural changes, sharing behaviour and psychological responses after receiving direct-to-consumer genetic test results: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Kelly F J Stewart; Anke Wesselius; Maartje A C Schreurs; Annemie M W J Schols; Maurice P Zeegers
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2017-06-29

4.  Neutral, Negative, or Negligible? Changes in Patient Perceptions of Disease Risk Following Receipt of a Negative Genomic Screening Result.

Authors:  Kelsey Stuttgen; Joel Pacyna; Iftikhar Kullo; Richard Sharp
Journal:  J Pers Med       Date:  2020-04-17

5.  Genomic information and a person's right not to know: A closer look at variations in hypothetical informational preferences in a German sample.

Authors:  Laura Flatau; Markus Reitt; Gunnar Duttge; Christian Lenk; Barbara Zoll; Wolfgang Poser; Alexandra Weber; Urs Heilbronner; Marcella Rietschel; Jana Strohmaier; Rebekka Kesberg; Jonas Nagel; Thomas G Schulze
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-06-20       Impact factor: 3.240

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.