Erika A Waters1, Linda Ball2, Sarah Gehlert2. 1. Washington University in St. Louis, USA. Electronic address: waterse@wudosis.wustl.edu. 2. Washington University in St. Louis, USA.
Abstract
RATIONALE: Effective translation of genomics research into practice depends on public acceptance of genomics-related health information. OBJECTIVE: To explore how smokers come to accept or reject information about the relationship between genetics and nicotine addiction. METHODS: Thirteen focus groups (N = 84) were stratified by education (seven < Bachelor's degree, six ≥ Bachelor's degree) and race (eight black, five white). Participants viewed a 1-min video describing the discovery of a genetic variant associated with increased risk of nicotine addiction and lung cancer. Next, they provided their opinions about the information. Two coders analyzed the data using grounded theory. RESULTS: Pre-video knowledge about why people smoke cigarettes and what genetic risk means informed beliefs about the relationship between genes and addiction. These beliefs were not always consistent with biomedical explanations, but formed the context through which participants processed the video's information. This, in turn, led to information acceptance or skepticism. Participants explained their reactions in terms of the scientific merits of the research and used their existing knowledge and beliefs to explain their acceptance of or skepticism about the information. CONCLUSION: Laypeople hold complex understandings of genetics and addiction. However, when lay and biomedical explanations diverge, genetics-related health information may be rejected.
RATIONALE: Effective translation of genomics research into practice depends on public acceptance of genomics-related health information. OBJECTIVE: To explore how smokers come to accept or reject information about the relationship between genetics and nicotine addiction. METHODS: Thirteen focus groups (N = 84) were stratified by education (seven < Bachelor's degree, six ≥ Bachelor's degree) and race (eight black, five white). Participants viewed a 1-min video describing the discovery of a genetic variant associated with increased risk of nicotine addiction and lung cancer. Next, they provided their opinions about the information. Two coders analyzed the data using grounded theory. RESULTS: Pre-video knowledge about why people smoke cigarettes and what genetic risk means informed beliefs about the relationship between genes and addiction. These beliefs were not always consistent with biomedical explanations, but formed the context through which participants processed the video's information. This, in turn, led to information acceptance or skepticism. Participants explained their reactions in terms of the scientific merits of the research and used their existing knowledge and beliefs to explain their acceptance of or skepticism about the information. CONCLUSION: Laypeople hold complex understandings of genetics and addiction. However, when lay and biomedical explanations diverge, genetics-related health information may be rejected.
Authors: Saskia C Sanderson; Suzanne C O'Neill; Della Brown White; Gerold Bepler; Lori Bastian; Isaac M Lipkus; Colleen M McBride Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2009-06-30 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: S C Sanderson; M A Diefenbach; S A Streicher; E W Jabs; M Smirnoff; C R Horowitz; R Zinberg; C Clesca; L D Richardson Journal: Public Health Genomics Date: 2012-12-12 Impact factor: 2.000
Authors: S C Sanderson; C M McBride; S C O'Neill; S Docherty; J Shepperd; I M Lipkus Journal: Public Health Genomics Date: 2014-02-19 Impact factor: 2.000
Authors: Theresa M Marteau; David P French; Simon J Griffin; A T Prevost; Stephen Sutton; Clare Watkinson; Sophie Attwood; Gareth J Hollands Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2010-10-06
Authors: Sarah M Hartz; Emily Olfson; Robert Culverhouse; Patricia Cavazos-Rehg; Li-Shiun Chen; James DuBois; Sherri Fisher; Kimberly Kaphingst; David Kaufman; Andrew Plunk; Shelina Ramnarine; Stephanie Solomon; Nancy L Saccone; Laura J Bierut Journal: Genet Med Date: 2014-08-28 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Gareth J Hollands; David P French; Simon J Griffin; A Toby Prevost; Stephen Sutton; Sarah King; Theresa M Marteau Journal: BMJ Date: 2016-03-15
Authors: Alex T Ramsey; Li-Shiun Chen; Sarah M Hartz; Nancy L Saccone; Sherri L Fisher; Enola K Proctor; Laura J Bierut Journal: Transl Behav Med Date: 2018-01-29 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: Susan Persky; Haley E Yaremych; Megan R Goldring; Rebecca A Ferrer; Margaret K Rose; Brittany M Hollister Journal: Ann Behav Med Date: 2021-07-22
Authors: Alex T Ramsey; Michael Bray; Penina Acayo Laker; Jessica L Bourdon; Amelia Dorsey; Maia Zalik; Amanda Pietka; Patricia Salyer; Erika A Waters; Li-Shiun Chen; Laura J Bierut Journal: Cancer Prev Res (Phila) Date: 2020-03-24
Authors: Jessica L Bourdon; Amelia Dorsey; Maia Zalik; Amanda Pietka; Patricia Salyer; Michael J Bray; Laura J Bierut; Alex T Ramsey Journal: BMC Med Genomics Date: 2021-05-26 Impact factor: 3.063
Authors: Erika A Waters; Jennifer M Taber; Amy McQueen; Ashley J Housten; Jamie L Studts; Laura D Scherer Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2020-10-12 Impact factor: 4.254