Literature DB >> 29130150

Predictors of adverse psychological experiences surrounding genome-wide profiling for disease risk.

K M Broady1, K E Ormond1,2, E J Topol3, N J Schork4, Cinnamon S Bloss5,6,7.   

Abstract

This study aimed to identify predictors of adverse psychological experiences among direct-to-consumer (DTC) genomic test consumers. We performed a secondary analysis on data from the Scripps Genomic Health Initiative (SGHI), which studied 2037 individuals tested with commercially available tests yielding personalized risk estimates for 23 common, genetically complex diseases. As part of the original study, the participants completed baseline and follow-up survey measures assessing demographics, personal and family health history, attitudes toward genetic testing, anxiety (State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI)), test-related distress (Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R)), and reactions to receipt of results. To further describe the participants who had an adverse psychological outcome, this secondary analysis defined two different variables ("distress response" and "psychologically sensitive participants") and examined their relationship to various demographic variables and other survey responses. One hundred thirty participants (6.4%) were defined as having a "distress response" to receipt of results based on changes in STAI and/or IES. Four hundred thirty-one participants (21.2%) were defined as being "psychologically sensitive" based on high STAI scores both pre- and post-receipt of results. For psychologically sensitive subjects, younger age emerged as a predictor (p < 0.0005). Family history and personal history were only significant predictors for Alzheimer's disease in the psychologically sensitive participants (p = .03) and restless leg syndrome in those with a distress response (p = .03). Psychologically sensitive participants were more likely to indicate a number of pre-test concerns than were controls, but neither group of participants were any more likely to follow up with their physician or a free genetic counseling service after the return of results.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Anxiety; Depression; Direct-to-consumer; Genetic testing; Genomic risk assessment; Impact of events; Personalized medicine; Precision medicine; Psychological distress

Year:  2017        PMID: 29130150      PMCID: PMC6002310          DOI: 10.1007/s12687-017-0339-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Community Genet        ISSN: 1868-310X


  26 in total

Review 1.  Consumers' views of direct-to-consumer genetic information.

Authors:  Colleen M McBride; Christopher H Wade; Kimberly A Kaphingst
Journal:  Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet       Date:  2010       Impact factor: 8.929

2.  A power primer.

Authors:  J Cohen
Journal:  Psychol Bull       Date:  1992-07       Impact factor: 17.737

3.  An agenda for personalized medicine.

Authors:  Pauline C Ng; Sarah S Murray; Samuel Levy; J Craig Venter
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2009-10-08       Impact factor: 49.962

4.  Effect of direct-to-consumer genomewide profiling to assess disease risk.

Authors:  Cinnamon S Bloss; Nicholas J Schork; Eric J Topol
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2011-01-12       Impact factor: 91.245

5.  23andMe and the FDA.

Authors:  George J Annas; Sherman Elias
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2014-02-12       Impact factor: 91.245

6.  Influence of individual differences in disease perception on consumer response to direct-to-consumer genomic testing.

Authors:  D L Boeldt; N J Schork; E J Topol; C S Bloss
Journal:  Clin Genet       Date:  2014-06-06       Impact factor: 4.438

7.  "It's not like judgment day": public understanding of and reactions to personalized genomic risk information.

Authors:  Erynn S Gordon; Georgia Griffin; Lisa Wawak; Hauchie Pang; Sarah E Gollust; Barbara A Bernhardt
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2011-12-17       Impact factor: 2.537

8.  Genetic risk estimation in the Coriell Personalized Medicine Collaborative.

Authors:  Catharine B Stack; Neda Gharani; Erynn S Gordon; Tara Schmidlen; Michael F Christman; Margaret A Keller
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 8.822

9.  Associations between risk perceptions and worry about common diseases: a between- and within-subjects examination.

Authors:  Shoshana Shiloh; Christopher H Wade; J Scott Roberts; Sharon Hensley Alford; Barbara B Biesecker
Journal:  Psychol Health       Date:  2012-11-05

10.  Risks of presymptomatic direct-to-consumer genetic testing.

Authors:  Justin P Annes; Monica A Giovanni; Michael F Murray
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2010-08-18       Impact factor: 91.245

View more
  4 in total

1.  Attitudes on pharmacogenetic testing in psychiatric patients with treatment-resistant depression.

Authors:  Michael J McCarthy; Yucui Chen; Anna Demodena; Eileen Fisher; Shahrokh Golshan; Trisha Suppes; John R Kelsoe
Journal:  Depress Anxiety       Date:  2020-07-15       Impact factor: 6.505

2.  Psychological outcomes related to exome and genome sequencing result disclosure: a meta-analysis of seven Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research (CSER) Consortium studies.

Authors:  Jill O Robinson; Julia Wynn; Barbara Biesecker; Leslie G Biesecker; Barbara Bernhardt; Kyle B Brothers; Wendy K Chung; Kurt D Christensen; Robert C Green; Amy L McGuire; M Ragan Hart; Ida Griesemer; Donald L Patrick; Christine Rini; David Veenstra; Angel M Cronin; Stacy W Gray
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2019-06-13       Impact factor: 8.822

3.  Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing Data Privacy: Key Concerns and Recommendations Based on Consumer Perspectives.

Authors:  Rachele M Hendricks-Sturrup; Christine Y Lu
Journal:  J Pers Med       Date:  2019-05-09

4.  Physicians' perspectives on receiving unsolicited genomic results.

Authors:  Douglas B Pet; Ingrid A Holm; Janet L Williams; Melanie F Myers; Laurie L Novak; Kyle B Brothers; Georgia L Wiesner; Ellen W Clayton
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2018-07-05       Impact factor: 8.822

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.