Maya Sabatello1, Ying Chen2, Saskia C Sanderson3,4, Wendy K Chung5,6, Paul S Appelbaum7. 1. Center for Research on Ethical, Legal & Social Implications of Psychiatric, Neurologic & Behavioral Genetics, Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA. ms4075@columbia.edu. 2. Division of Biostatistics, New York State Psychiatric Institute, New York, NY, USA. 3. Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, London, UK. 4. Department of Clinical Genetics, Great Ormond Street Hospital, London, UK. 5. Department of Pediatrics, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA. 6. Department of Medicine, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA. 7. Center for Research on Ethical, Legal & Social Implications of Psychiatric, Neurologic & Behavioral Genetics, Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Adolescents increasingly need to be "genomics literate," and may engage more with video educational formats than traditional written formats. We conducted a pilot study to assess and compare the impact of two modes of education about genome sequencing (GS) on adolescents' genomic knowledge and genomic-related decisions. METHODS: Using an online survey, 43 adolescents ages 14-17 years were randomly assigned to watch a video or read a pamphlet about GS. Measures included pre- and postintervention assessment of genomic knowledge, perceived utility of these materials for decisions about participating in genetic research, interest in receiving GS results, and overall satisfaction with these materials. Analyses described results for all participants and compared results between intervention groups. RESULTS: Self-reported genomic knowledge increased overall (p < 0.001). Postintervention knowledge about GS limitations was higher among video group than pamphlet group participants (p = 0.038). More video group than pamphlet group participants expressed satisfaction with the material's understandability (45% vs. 29%) and suitability (91% vs. 76%). Interest in receiving personal GS results was significantly associated with being female (p = 0.01) and younger (14-15 years vs. 16-17 years) (p = 0.002). CONCLUSION: A video format may be preferable for increasing genomic literacy among adolescents. Further research with adolescents is needed to better understand how gender and age may impact genomic decisions and preferences.
PURPOSE: Adolescents increasingly need to be "genomics literate," and may engage more with video educational formats than traditional written formats. We conducted a pilot study to assess and compare the impact of two modes of education about genome sequencing (GS) on adolescents' genomic knowledge and genomic-related decisions. METHODS: Using an online survey, 43 adolescents ages 14-17 years were randomly assigned to watch a video or read a pamphlet about GS. Measures included pre- and postintervention assessment of genomic knowledge, perceived utility of these materials for decisions about participating in genetic research, interest in receiving GS results, and overall satisfaction with these materials. Analyses described results for all participants and compared results between intervention groups. RESULTS: Self-reported genomic knowledge increased overall (p < 0.001). Postintervention knowledge about GS limitations was higher among video group than pamphlet group participants (p = 0.038). More video group than pamphlet group participants expressed satisfaction with the material's understandability (45% vs. 29%) and suitability (91% vs. 76%). Interest in receiving personal GS results was significantly associated with being female (p = 0.01) and younger (14-15 years vs. 16-17 years) (p = 0.002). CONCLUSION: A video format may be preferable for increasing genomic literacy among adolescents. Further research with adolescents is needed to better understand how gender and age may impact genomic decisions and preferences.
Authors: Saskia C Sanderson; Michael A Diefenbach; Randi Zinberg; Carol R Horowitz; Margaret Smirnoff; Micol Zweig; Samantha Streicher; Ethylin Wang Jabs; Lynne D Richardson Journal: J Community Genet Date: 2013-06-22
Authors: Mary E Ropka; Jennifer Wenzel; Elayne K Phillips; Mir Siadaty; John T Philbrick Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2006-05 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: K A Kaphingst; F M Facio; M-R Cheng; S Brooks; H Eidem; A Linn; B B Biesecker; L G Biesecker Journal: Clin Genet Date: 2012-08-07 Impact factor: 4.438
Authors: Brooke L Levenseller; Danielle J Soucier; Victoria A Miller; Diana Harris; Laura Conway; Barbara A Bernhardt Journal: J Genet Couns Date: 2013-07-12 Impact factor: 2.537
Authors: Celine Lewis; Bao S Loe; Chris Sidey-Gibbons; Christine Patch; Lyn S Chitty; Saskia C Sanderson Journal: Clin Genet Date: 2019-07-30 Impact factor: 4.438
Authors: Aarushi Gupta; Joseph A Cafazzo; Maarten J IJzerman; Joost F Swart; Sebastiaan Vastert; Nico M Wulffraat; Susanne Benseler; Deborah Marshall; Rae Yeung; Marinka Twilt Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2021-12-24 Impact factor: 5.428