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