OBJECTIVE: Advances in genomewide association studies have made possible the return of genetic risk results for complex diseases. Two concerns about these results are (a) negative psychological consequences and (b) viewing probabilistic results as deterministic, leading to misinterpretation and inappropriate decisions. The present study evaluates these concerns through a meta-analytic review of existing literature. METHOD: Seventeen genetic testing studies of complex disease, including 1,171 participants and reporting 195 effects, 104 of which were unadjusted for covariates, were meta-analyzed under a random effects model. Diseases included Alzheimer's, cardiovascular and coronary heart disease, lung cancer, melanoma, thrombophilia, and type II diabetes. Six domains of behavioral-psychological reactions were examined. RESULTS: Carriers showed significantly increased self-reported behavior change compared to noncarriers when assessed 6 months or later after results return (Hedges's g = .36, p = .019). CONCLUSIONS: Return of genetic testing results for complex disease does not strongly impact self-reported negative behavior or psychological function of at-risk individuals. Return of results does appear to moderately increase self-reported healthy behavior in carriers, although research on objectively observed behavior change is needed. This is a growing area of research, with preliminary results suggesting potential positive implications of genetic testing for complex disease on behavior change. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved).
OBJECTIVE: Advances in genomewide association studies have made possible the return of genetic risk results for complex diseases. Two concerns about these results are (a) negative psychological consequences and (b) viewing probabilistic results as deterministic, leading to misinterpretation and inappropriate decisions. The present study evaluates these concerns through a meta-analytic review of existing literature. METHOD: Seventeen genetic testing studies of complex disease, including 1,171 participants and reporting 195 effects, 104 of which were unadjusted for covariates, were meta-analyzed under a random effects model. Diseases included Alzheimer's, cardiovascular and coronary heart disease, lung cancer, melanoma, thrombophilia, and type II diabetes. Six domains of behavioral-psychological reactions were examined. RESULTS: Carriers showed significantly increased self-reported behavior change compared to noncarriers when assessed 6 months or later after results return (Hedges's g = .36, p = .019). CONCLUSIONS: Return of genetic testing results for complex disease does not strongly impact self-reported negative behavior or psychological function of at-risk individuals. Return of results does appear to moderately increase self-reported healthy behavior in carriers, although research on objectively observed behavior change is needed. This is a growing area of research, with preliminary results suggesting potential positive implications of genetic testing for complex disease on behavior change. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved).
Authors: J Heshka; C Palleschi; B Wilson; J Brehaut; J Rutberg; H Etchegary; N Langlois; M Rodger; P S Wells Journal: J Genet Couns Date: 2008-02-21 Impact factor: 2.537
Authors: Serena Chao; J Scott Roberts; Theresa M Marteau; Rebecca Silliman; L Adrienne Cupples; Robert C Green Journal: Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord Date: 2008 Jan-Mar Impact factor: 2.703
Authors: Kurt D Christensen; J Scott Roberts; Peter J Whitehouse; Charmaine D M Royal; Thomas O Obisesan; L Adrienne Cupples; Jacqueline A Vernarelli; Deepak L Bhatt; Erin Linnenbringer; Melissa B Butson; Grace-Ann Fasaye; Wendy R Uhlmann; Susan Hiraki; Na Wang; Robert Cook-Deegan; Robert C Green Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2016-01-26 Impact factor: 25.391
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: Colleen M McBride; Kristi D Graves; Kimberly A Kaphingst; Caitlin G Allen; Catharine Wang; Elva Arredondo; William M P Klein Journal: Transl Behav Med Date: 2019-11-25 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: William M P Klein; Colleen M McBride; Caitlin G Allen; Elva M Arredondo; Cinnamon S Bloss; Kimberly A Kaphingst; Amy C Sturm; Catharine Wang Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2019-02-07 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: Erva Khan; Kimberly A Kaphingst; Kirsten Meyer White; Andrew Sussman; Dolores Guest; Elizabeth Schofield; Yvonne T Dailey; Erika Robers; Matthew R Schwartz; Yuelin Li; David Buller; Keith Hunley; Marianne Berwick; Jennifer L Hay Journal: J Community Genet Date: 2021-11-19
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: Jennifer M Taber; Lisa G Aspinwall; Danielle M Drummond; Tammy K Stump; Wendy Kohlmann; Marjan Champine; Pamela Cassidy; Sancy A Leachman Journal: Ann Behav Med Date: 2021-02-12
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
Authors: Alex T Ramsey; Jessica L Bourdon; Michael Bray; Amelia Dorsey; Maia Zalik; Amanda Pietka; Patricia Salyer; Li-Shiun Chen; Timothy B Baker; Marcus R Munafò; Laura J Bierut Journal: Cancer Prev Res (Phila) Date: 2020-09-21