Literature DB >> 30964581

Interpretations of the Term "Actionable" when Discussing Genetic Test Results: What you Mean Is Not What I Heard.

Michele C Gornick1,2, Kerry A Ryan1, Aaron M Scherer3, J Scott Roberts1,4, Raymond G De Vries1,5, Wendy R Uhlmann1,2,6.   

Abstract

In genomic medicine, the familiarity and inexactness of the term "actionable" can lead to multiple interpretations and mistaken beliefs about realistic treatment options. As part of a larger study focusing on public attitudes toward policies for the return of secondary genomic results, we looked at how members of the lay public interpret the term "medically actionable" in the context of genetic testing. We also surveyed a convenience sample of oncologists as part of a separate study and asked them to define the term "medically actionable." After being provided with a definition of the term, 21 out of 60 (35%) layperson respondents wrote an additional action not specified in the provided definition (12 mentioned "cure" and 9 mentioned environment or behavioral change) and 17 (28%) indicated "something can be done" with no action specified. In contrast, 52 surveyed oncologists did not mention environment, behavioral change, or cure. Based on our findings, we propose that rather than using the term "actionable" alone, providers should also say "what they mean" to reduce miscommunication and confusion that could negatively impact medical decision-making. Lastly, to guide clinicians during patient- provider discussion about genetic test results, we provide examples of phrasing to facilitate clearer communication and understanding of the term "actionable."
© 2018 National Society of Genetic Counselors.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Genomic results; Health provider-patient communication; Medically actionable; health literacy

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30964581     DOI: 10.1007/s10897-018-0289-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Genet Couns        ISSN: 1059-7700            Impact factor:   2.537


  5 in total

1.  The passivists: Managing risk through institutionalized ignorance in genomic medicine.

Authors:  Kellie Owens
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2022-01-10       Impact factor: 4.634

2.  Patient and Provider Perspectives on Enrollment in Precision Oncology Research: Qualitative Ethical Analysis.

Authors:  Andrew G Shuman; Kayte Spector-Bagdady; Madison Kent; Chris D Krenz; Collin Brummel; Paul L Swiecicki; J Chad Brenner
Journal:  JMIR Cancer       Date:  2022-05-03

Review 3.  Consent and Autonomy in the Genomics Era.

Authors:  Rachel Horton; Anneke Lucassen
Journal:  Curr Genet Med Rep       Date:  2019-05-02

4.  Impact of a 40-Gene Targeted Panel Test on Physician Decision Making for Patients With Acute Myeloid Leukemia.

Authors:  Erica K Barnell; Kenneth F Newcomer; Zachary L Skidmore; Kilannin Krysiak; Sydney R Anderson; Lukas D Wartman; Stephen T Oh; John S Welch; Keith E Stockerl-Goldstein; Ravi Vij; Amanda F Cashen; Iskra Pusic; Peter Westervelt; Camille N Abboud; Armin Ghobadi; Geoffrey L Uy; Mark A Schroeder; John F Dipersio; Mary C Politi; David H Spencer; Eric J Duncavage; Timothy J Ley; Malachi Griffith; Meagan A Jacoby; Obi L Griffith
Journal:  JCO Precis Oncol       Date:  2021-01-14

5.  GeneLiFT: A novel test to facilitate rapid screening of genetic literacy in a diverse population undergoing genetic testing.

Authors:  Hila Milo Rasouly; Nicole Cuneo; Maddalena Marasa; Natalia DeMaria; Debanjana Chatterjee; Jacqueline J Thompson; David A Fasel; Julia Wynn; Wendy K Chung; Paul Appelbaum; Chunhua Weng; Suzanne Bakken; Ali G Gharavi
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2020-12-26       Impact factor: 2.537

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.