OBJECTIVE: This study assessed whether a customized disclosure form increases understanding for adolescents with substance use disorder (SUD) when compared to a standard disclosure for genomic addiction research. METHOD: We gathered empirical data from adolescents with SUD, family members, former patients followed since adolescence, and community counterparts. The study was conducted in four stages. Stage 1: national experts (n=32) identified current, future, speculative risks of broadly shared biobanks. Stage 2 assessed participants' (n=181) understanding of current risks as a prerequisite for rating saliency of risks via a Visual Analog Scale. Salient risks were incorporated into a customized disclosure form. Stage 3 compared the understanding of customized disclosure by participants (n=165) at baseline; all groups scored comparably. Stage 4 conducted a direct comparison of the standard disclosure to standard disclosure plus customized disclosure (n=195). Independent t-tests compared understanding in those receiving the standard disclosure to standard disclosure plus customized disclosure within 6 groups. RESULTS: The customized disclosure significantly improved understanding in adolescent patients (p=0.002) and parents of patients (p=0.006) to the level of their counterparts. The customized disclosure also significantly improved understanding in siblings of former patients (p=0.034). Understanding of standard disclosure in patients versus controls was significantly different (p=0.005). The groups receiving the customized disclosure scored significantly higher. Understanding of the standard disclosure plus customized disclosure in patients versus controls was not significantly different. CONCLUSION: Adolescents with addictions understand the risks of participating in genomic addiction research as well as their community counterparts when information provided is salient to them.
OBJECTIVE: This study assessed whether a customized disclosure form increases understanding for adolescents with substance use disorder (SUD) when compared to a standard disclosure for genomic addiction research. METHOD: We gathered empirical data from adolescents with SUD, family members, former patients followed since adolescence, and community counterparts. The study was conducted in four stages. Stage 1: national experts (n=32) identified current, future, speculative risks of broadly shared biobanks. Stage 2 assessed participants' (n=181) understanding of current risks as a prerequisite for rating saliency of risks via a Visual Analog Scale. Salient risks were incorporated into a customized disclosure form. Stage 3 compared the understanding of customized disclosure by participants (n=165) at baseline; all groups scored comparably. Stage 4 conducted a direct comparison of the standard disclosure to standard disclosure plus customized disclosure (n=195). Independent t-tests compared understanding in those receiving the standard disclosure to standard disclosure plus customized disclosure within 6 groups. RESULTS: The customized disclosure significantly improved understanding in adolescent patients (p=0.002) and parents of patients (p=0.006) to the level of their counterparts. The customized disclosure also significantly improved understanding in siblings of former patients (p=0.034). Understanding of standard disclosure in patients versus controls was significantly different (p=0.005). The groups receiving the customized disclosure scored significantly higher. Understanding of the standard disclosure plus customized disclosure in patients versus controls was not significantly different. CONCLUSION: Adolescents with addictions understand the risks of participating in genomic addiction research as well as their community counterparts when information provided is salient to them.
Authors: Michael C Stallings; Robin P Corley; John K Hewitt; Kenneth S Krauter; Jeffrey M Lessem; Susan K Mikulich; Soo Hyun Rhee; Andrew Smolen; Susan E Young; Thomas J Crowley Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2003-06-05 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Jaime Derringer; Robin P Corley; Brett C Haberstick; Susan E Young; Brittany A Demmitt; Daniel P Howrigan; Robert M Kirkpatrick; William G Iacono; Matt McGue; Matthew C Keller; Sandra Brown; Susan Tapert; Christian J Hopfer; Michael C Stallings; Thomas J Crowley; Soo Hyun Rhee; Ken Krauter; John K Hewitt; Matthew B McQueen Journal: Behav Genet Date: 2015-01-31 Impact factor: 2.805
Authors: Terry C Davis; Michael S Wolf; Pat F Bass; Mark Middlebrooks; Estela Kennen; David W Baker; Charles L Bennett; Ramon Durazo-Arvizu; Anna Bocchini; Stephanie Savory; Ruth M Parker Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2006-08 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Cathy A Coyne; Ronghui Xu; Peter Raich; Kathy Plomer; Mark Dignan; Lari B Wenzel; Diane Fairclough; Thomas Habermann; Linda Schnell; Susan Quella; David Cella Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2003-03-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Dominik Soll; Maria Magdalena Guraiib; Nigel Campbell Rollins; Andreas Alois Reis Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2020-05-13 Impact factor: 4.615