Literature DB >> 29385583

Preferences for learning different types of genome sequencing results among young breast cancer patients: Role of psychological and clinical factors.

Kimberly A Kaphingst1, Jennifer Ivanovich2, Sarah Lyons2, Barbara Biesecker3, Rebecca Dresser4, Ashley Elrick1, Cindy Matsen1, Melody Goodman5.   

Abstract

The growing importance of genome sequencing means that patients will increasingly face decisions regarding what results they would like to learn. The present study examined psychological and clinical factors that might affect these preferences. 1,080 women diagnosed with breast cancer at age 40 or younger completed an online survey. We assessed their interest in learning various types of genome sequencing results: risk of preventable disease or unpreventable disease, cancer treatment response, uncertain meaning, risk to relatives' health, and ancestry/physical traits. Multivariable logistic regression was used to examine whether being "very" interested in each result type was associated with clinical factors: BRCA1/2 mutation status, prior genetic testing, family history of breast cancer, and psychological factors: cancer recurrence worry, genetic risk worry, future orientation, health information orientation, and genome sequencing knowledge. The proportion of respondents who were very interested in learning each type of result ranged from 16% to 77%. In all multivariable models, those who were very interested in learning a result type had significantly higher knowledge about sequencing benefits, greater genetic risks worry, and stronger health information orientation compared to those with less interest (p-values < .05). Our findings indicate that high interest in return of various types of genome sequencing results was more closely related to psychological factors. Shared decision-making approaches that increase knowledge about genome sequencing and incorporate patient preferences for health information and learning about genetic risks may help support patients' informed choices about learning different types of sequencing results. © Society of Behavioral Medicine 2018.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Breast cancer; Decision support; Genome sequencing; Genomic knowledge; Patient preferences; Return of results

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29385583      PMCID: PMC6065546          DOI: 10.1093/tbm/ibx042

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Transl Behav Med        ISSN: 1613-9860            Impact factor:   3.046


  44 in total

1.  PRISM: a planned risk information seeking model.

Authors:  LeeAnn Kahlor
Journal:  Health Commun       Date:  2010-06

2.  Discussing molecular testing in oncology care: Comparing patient and physician information preferences.

Authors:  Ana P M Pinheiro; Rachel H Pocock; Jeffrey M Switchenko; Margie D Dixon; Walid L Shaib; Suresh S Ramalingam; Rebecca D Pentz
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2017-01-31       Impact factor: 6.860

3.  Attitudes of non-African American focus group participants toward return of results from exome and whole genome sequencing.

Authors:  Joon-Ho Yu; Julia Crouch; Seema M Jamal; Michael J Bamshad; Holly K Tabor
Journal:  Am J Med Genet A       Date:  2014-05-20       Impact factor: 2.802

Review 4.  Diagnostic clinical genome and exome sequencing.

Authors:  Leslie G Biesecker; Robert C Green
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2014-06-19       Impact factor: 91.245

5.  Information Avoidance Tendencies, Threat Management Resources, and Interest in Genetic Sequencing Feedback.

Authors:  Jennifer M Taber; William M P Klein; Rebecca A Ferrer; Katie L Lewis; Peter R Harris; James A Shepperd; Leslie G Biesecker
Journal:  Ann Behav Med       Date:  2015-08

6.  Proposed model of the relationship of risk information seeking and processing to the development of preventive behaviors.

Authors:  R J Griffin; S Dunwoody; K Neuwirth
Journal:  Environ Res       Date:  1999-02       Impact factor: 6.498

Review 7.  The role of cancer worry in cancer screening: a theoretical and empirical review of the literature.

Authors:  Jennifer L Hay; Tamara R Buckley; Jamie S Ostroff
Journal:  Psychooncology       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 3.894

8.  The ClinSeq Project: piloting large-scale genome sequencing for research in genomic medicine.

Authors:  Leslie G Biesecker; James C Mullikin; Flavia M Facio; Clesson Turner; Praveen F Cherukuri; Robert W Blakesley; Gerard G Bouffard; Peter S Chines; Pedro Cruz; Nancy F Hansen; Jamie K Teer; Baishali Maskeri; Alice C Young; Teri A Manolio; Alexander F Wilson; Toren Finkel; Paul Hwang; Andrew Arai; Alan T Remaley; Vandana Sachdev; Robert Shamburek; Richard O Cannon; Eric D Green
Journal:  Genome Res       Date:  2009-07-14       Impact factor: 9.043

9.  Oncologists' and cancer patients' views on whole-exome sequencing and incidental findings: results from the CanSeq study.

Authors:  Stacy W Gray; Elyse R Park; Julie Najita; Yolanda Martins; Lara Traeger; Elizabeth Bair; Joshua Gagne; Judy Garber; Pasi A Jänne; Neal Lindeman; Carol Lowenstein; Nelly Oliver; Lynette Sholl; Eliezer M Van Allen; Nikhil Wagle; Sam Wood; Levi Garraway; Steven Joffe
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2016-02-11       Impact factor: 8.822

10.  Trusted online sources of health information: differences in demographics, health beliefs, and health-information orientation.

Authors:  Mohan Dutta-Bergman
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2003-09-25       Impact factor: 5.428

View more
  14 in total

1.  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

2.  Factors affecting breast cancer patients' need for genetic risk information: From information insufficiency to information need.

Authors:  Soo Jung Hong; Barbara Biesecker; Jennifer Ivanovich; Melody Goodman; Kimberly A Kaphingst
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2019-01-24       Impact factor: 2.537

3.  The Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research Consortium: Integrating Genomic Sequencing in Diverse and Medically Underserved Populations.

Authors:  Laura M Amendola; Jonathan S Berg; Carol R Horowitz; Frank Angelo; Jeannette T Bensen; Barbara B Biesecker; Leslie G Biesecker; Gregory M Cooper; Kelly East; Kelly Filipski; Stephanie M Fullerton; Bruce D Gelb; Katrina A B Goddard; Benyam Hailu; Ragan Hart; Kristen Hassmiller-Lich; Galen Joseph; Eimear E Kenny; Barbara A Koenig; Sara Knight; Pui-Yan Kwok; Katie L Lewis; Amy L McGuire; Mary E Norton; Jeffrey Ou; Donald W Parsons; Bradford C Powell; Neil Risch; Mimsie Robinson; Christine Rini; Sarah Scollon; Anne M Slavotinek; David L Veenstra; Melissa P Wasserstein; Benjamin S Wilfond; Lucia A Hindorff; Sharon E Plon; Gail P Jarvik
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2018-09-06       Impact factor: 11.025

4.  Decision role preferences for return of results from genome sequencing amongst young breast cancer patients.

Authors:  Cindy B Matsen; Sarah Lyons; Melody S Goodman; Barbara B Biesecker; Kimberly A Kaphingst
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2018-08-04

5.  Introduction to the Special Issue on Clinical and Public Health Genomics: Opportunities for translational behavioral medicine research, practice, and policy.

Authors:  Kristi D Graves; Michael J Hall; Kenneth P Tercyak
Journal:  Transl Behav Med       Date:  2018-01-29       Impact factor: 3.046

6.  In Different Voices: The Views of People with Disabilities about Return of Results from Precision Medicine Research.

Authors:  Maya Sabatello; Yuan Zhang; Ying Chen; Paul S Appelbaum
Journal:  Public Health Genomics       Date:  2020-04-15       Impact factor: 2.000

7.  Comparing preferences for return of genome sequencing results assessed with rating and ranking items.

Authors:  Suhan Guo; Melody Goodman; Kimberly Kaphingst
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2019-10-30       Impact factor: 2.537

8.  Impact of numeracy preferences on information needs for genome sequencing results.

Authors:  Richard D Albrechtsen; Melody S Goodman; Jemar R Bather; Kimberly A Kaphingst
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2020-09-25

9.  The impact of the number of tests presented and a provider recommendation on decisions about genetic testing for cancer risk.

Authors:  Marci L B Schwartz; William M P Klein; Lori A H Erby; Christy H Smith; Debra L Roter
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2020-09-18

10.  Public interest in unexpected genomic findings: a survey study identifying aspects of sequencing attitudes that influence preferences.

Authors:  Holly Etchegary; Daryl Pullman; Charlene Simmonds; Proton Rahman
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2022-01-21
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.