Literature DB >> 26178773

Genetic test reporting enhances understanding of risk information and acceptance of prevention recommendations compared to family history-based counseling alone.

Jennifer M Taber1, Lisa G Aspinwall2, Tammy K Stump1, Wendy Kohlmann3, Marjan Champine3, Sancy A Leachman4.   

Abstract

It is unknown whether or why genetic test reporting confers benefits in the understanding and management of cancer risk beyond what patients learn from counseling based on family history. A prospective nonexperimental control group study compared participants from melanoma-prone families who underwent CDKN2A/p16 (p16) genetic testing (27 carriers, 38 noncarriers) to participants from equivalently melanoma-prone families known not to carry a deleterious p16 mutation (31 no-test controls). All participants received equivalent counseling concerning elevated lifetime melanoma risk and corresponding recommendations for prevention and screening. Both immediately and 1 month after counseling, participants receiving a genetic test result reported greater understanding of their risk, decreased derogation of the risk information, and greater personal applicability of prevention recommendations than no-test controls. Decreased derogation of risk information after test reporting predicted further increases in understanding of melanoma risk and applicability of prevention recommendations 1 month later. Results suggest unique benefits of genetic test reporting in promoting understanding and acceptance of information about hereditary cancer risk and its management.

Entities:  

Keywords:  CDKN2A/p16; Defensive processing; Genetic testing; Illness coherence; Melanoma; Understanding of risk

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26178773      PMCID: PMC4568160          DOI: 10.1007/s10865-015-9648-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Behav Med        ISSN: 0160-7715


  25 in total

1.  Comparative fit indexes in structural models.

Authors:  P M Bentler
Journal:  Psychol Bull       Date:  1990-03       Impact factor: 17.737

Review 2.  Counseling and DNA testing for individuals perceived to be genetically predisposed to melanoma: A consensus statement of the Melanoma Genetics Consortium.

Authors:  R F Kefford; J A Newton Bishop; W Bergman; M A Tucker
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  1999-10       Impact factor: 44.544

3.  Predictive genetic testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer: psychological distress and illness representations 1 year following disclosure.

Authors:  E Claes; G Evers-Kiebooms; L Denayer; M Decruyenaere; A Boogaerts; K Philippe; E Legius
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 2.537

4.  How well do people recall risk factor test results? Accuracy and bias among cholesterol screening participants.

Authors:  Robert T Croyle; Elizabeth F Loftus; Steven D Barger; Yi-Chun Sun; Marybeth Hart; JoAnn Gettig
Journal:  Health Psychol       Date:  2006-05       Impact factor: 4.267

5.  The common sense model of self-regulation and psychological adjustment to predictive genetic testing: a prospective study.

Authors:  Iris van Oostrom; Hanne Meijers-Heijboer; Hugo J Duivenvoorden; Annette H J T Bröcker-Vriends; Christi J van Asperen; Rolf H Sijmons; Caroline Seynaeve; Arthur R Van Gool; Jan G M Klijn; Aad Tibben
Journal:  Psychooncology       Date:  2007-12       Impact factor: 3.894

6.  Lifetime risk of melanoma in CDKN2A mutation carriers in a population-based sample.

Authors:  Colin B Begg; Irene Orlow; Amanda J Hummer; Bruce K Armstrong; Anne Kricker; Loraine D Marrett; Robert C Millikan; Stephen B Gruber; Hoda Anton-Culver; Roberto Zanetti; Richard P Gallagher; Terence Dwyer; Timothy R Rebbeck; Nandita Mitra; Klaus Busam; Lynn From; Marianne Berwick
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2005-10-19       Impact factor: 13.506

7.  Design and psychometric evaluation of the Psychological Adaptation to Genetic Information Scale.

Authors:  Catherine Y Read; Donna J Perry; Mary E Duffy
Journal:  J Nurs Scholarsh       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 3.176

8.  Using the common-sense model to predict risk perception and disease-related worry in individuals at increased risk for venous thrombosis.

Authors:  Ad A Kaptein; Inez M van Korlaar; Linda D Cameron; Carla Y Vossen; Felix J M van der Meer; Frits R Rosendaal
Journal:  Health Psychol       Date:  2007-11       Impact factor: 4.267

Review 9.  Genetic testing for melanoma predisposition: current challenges.

Authors:  Meg R Gerstenblith; Alisa M Goldstein; Margaret A Tucker; Mary C Fraser
Journal:  Cancer Nurs       Date:  2007 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 2.592

10.  Judging health status: effects of perceived prevalence and personal relevance.

Authors:  J B Jemmott; P H Ditto; R T Croyle
Journal:  J Pers Soc Psychol       Date:  1986-05
View more
  15 in total

1.  Current directions in behavioral medicine research on genetic testing for disease susceptibility: introduction to the special section.

Authors:  Kerry A Sherman; Linda D Cameron
Journal:  J Behav Med       Date:  2015-10

2.  A primer in genomics for social and behavioral investigators.

Authors:  Erin Turbitt; Barbara B Biesecker
Journal:  Transl Behav Med       Date:  2020-05-20       Impact factor: 3.046

3.  Making Sense of SNPs: Women's Understanding and Experiences of Receiving a Personalized Profile of Their Breast Cancer Risks.

Authors:  Mary-Anne Young; Laura Elenor Forrest; Victoria-Mae Rasmussen; Paul James; Gillian Mitchell; Sarah Dilys Sawyer; Katrina Reeve; Nina Hallowell
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2017-11-22       Impact factor: 2.537

4.  Blue Genes? Understanding and Mitigating Negative Consequences of Personalized Information about Genetic Risk for Depression.

Authors:  Matthew S Lebowitz; Woo-Kyoung Ahn
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2017-08-07       Impact factor: 2.537

5.  Pediatric Predispositional Genetic Risk Communication: Potential Utility for Prevention and Control of Melanoma Risk as an Exemplar.

Authors:  Yelena P Wu; Darren Mays; Wendy Kohlmann; Kenneth P Tercyak
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2017-05-25       Impact factor: 2.537

6.  Health beliefs associated with readiness for genetic counseling among high risk breast cancer survivors.

Authors:  Maija Reblin; Monica L Kasting; Kelli Nam; Courtney L Scherr; Jongphil Kim; Ram Thapa; Cathy D Meade; M Catherine Lee; Tuya Pal; Gwendolyn P Quinn; Susan T Vadaparampil
Journal:  Breast J       Date:  2018-11-28       Impact factor: 2.431

7.  Genetic test reporting of CDKN2A provides informational and motivational benefits for managing melanoma risk.

Authors:  Lisa G Aspinwall; Tammy K Stump; Jennifer M Taber; Danielle M Drummond; Wendy Kohlmann; Marjan Champine; Sancy A Leachman
Journal:  Transl Behav Med       Date:  2018-01-29       Impact factor: 3.046

8.  A novel educational intervention targeting melanoma risk and prevention knowledge among children with a familial risk for melanoma.

Authors:  Yelena P Wu; Elizabeth Nagelhout; Lisa G Aspinwall; Kenneth M Boucher; Bridget G Parsons; Wendy Kohlmann; Kimberly A Kaphingst; Sheila Homburger; Ryan D Perkins; Douglas Grossman; Garrett Harding; Sancy A Leachman
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2017-10-19

9.  Priority of Risk (But Not Perceived Magnitude of Risk) Predicts Improved Sun-Protection Behavior Following Genetic Counseling for Familial Melanoma.

Authors:  Jennifer M Taber; Lisa G Aspinwall; Danielle M Drummond; Tammy K Stump; Wendy Kohlmann; Marjan Champine; Pamela Cassidy; Sancy A Leachman
Journal:  Ann Behav Med       Date:  2021-02-12

Review 10.  Four Actionable Bottlenecks and Potential Solutions to Translating Psychiatric Genetics Research: An Expert Review.

Authors:  Jessica L Bourdon; Rachel A Davies; Elizabeth C Long
Journal:  Public Health Genomics       Date:  2020-11-04       Impact factor: 2.000

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.