Literature DB >> 32220044

Public perception of predictive cancer genetic testing and research in Oregon.

Teala W Alvord1,2, Lisa K Marriott1,3, Phuc T Nguyen1,2, Autumn Shafer4, Kim Brown3, Wesley Stoller5, Jennifer L Volpi3, Jill Vandehey-Guerrero3, Laura K Ferrara3, Steven Blakesley3, Erin Solomon3, Hannah Kuehl3, Amy J Palma5, Paige E Farris1, Kelly J Hamman6, Madisen Cotter2, Jackilen Shannon1,3,5.   

Abstract

The potential for using widespread genetic testing to inform health care has become a viable option, particularly for heritable cancers. Yet, little is known about how to effectively communicate the benefits and risks of both personal genetic testing and participation in biorepositories that aid scientific advancements. Nationwide efforts are engaging communities in large genetic studies to better estimate the population-wide prevalence of heritable cancers but have been met with hesitance or declination to participate in some communities. To successfully engage an Oregon population in longitudinal research that includes predictive genetic testing for pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants associated with an increased risk for cancer, researchers conducted 35 focus groups (two of which were held in Spanish) in 24 of Oregon's 36 counties to better understand knowledge and attitudes related to genetic testing and willingness to participate in longitudinal genetic research. A total of 203 adults (mean = 45.6 years; range 18-88), representing a range of education levels and prior knowledge of genetic research, participated in the focus groups. The majority (85%) of participants reported personal or family diagnoses of cancer (e.g., self, family, friends). A majority (87%) also reported a strong interest in cancer genetic testing and receiving genetic information about themselves. Nearly all focus groups (94%, 33 of 35 sites) included participant discussion citing their families (e.g., children, close relatives, and extended family members) as key motivators for participation in genetic research. For example, participants reported interest in increasing personal knowledge about their own and their families' cancer risks in order to respond proactively, if a pathogenic variant was found. While most focus groups (94%, 33 of 35 sites) included participant discussion describing barriers to predictive genetic, testing such as concerns about outcomes, the desire to learn about health risks in oneself mitigated or outweighed those fears for many participants. Other commonly reported concerns were related to potential mistrust of insurance companies, researchers, or institutions, or lack of knowledge about genetics, genetic testing, or genetic research. Participants, particularly in rural areas, highlighted critical factors for research recruitment, such as trust, personal interaction, public education about genetic research, and clear communication about study goals and processes. Our statewide findings reflect that public interest in predictive cancer genetic testing and cancer genetic research can surpass lack of knowledge of the complex topics, particularly when benefits for self and family are emphasized and when study considerations are well articulated.
© 2020 National Society of Genetic Counselors.

Entities:  

Keywords:  disparity; focus groups; genetic testing; heritable; marketing; outreach; pathogenic variants; qualitative; recruitment; rural

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32220044      PMCID: PMC7466847          DOI: 10.1002/jgc4.1262

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


  39 in total

Review 1.  A systematic review of barriers and facilitators to minority research participation among African Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans, and Pacific Islanders.

Authors:  Sheba George; Nelida Duran; Keith Norris
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2013-12-12       Impact factor: 9.308

2.  Assessing Genetic Literacy Awareness and Knowledge Gaps in the US Population: Results from the Health Information National Trends Survey.

Authors:  Melinda Krakow; Chelsea L Ratcliff; Bradford W Hesse; Alexandra J Greenberg-Worisek
Journal:  Public Health Genomics       Date:  2018-05-31       Impact factor: 2.000

3.  Geographic and population-level disparities in colorectal cancer testing: A multilevel analysis of Medicaid and commercial claims data.

Authors:  Melinda M Davis; Stephanie Renfro; Robyn Pham; Kristen Hassmiller Lich; Jackilen Shannon; Gloria D Coronado; Stephanie B Wheeler
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2017-05-13       Impact factor: 4.018

4.  Barriers to cancer screening among Orthodox Jewish women.

Authors:  Rifky Tkatch; Janella Hudson; Anne Katz; Lisa Berry-Bobovski; Jennifer Vichich; Susan Eggly; Louis A Penner; Terrance L Albrecht
Journal:  J Community Health       Date:  2014-12

5.  Engaging rural communities in genetic research: challenges and opportunities.

Authors:  Caress Dean; Amanda J Fogleman; Whitney E Zahnd; Alexander E Lipka; Ripan Singh Malhi; Kristin R Delfino; Wiley D Jenkins
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2017-05-05

Review 6.  Recruitment and retention of rural African Americans in diabetes research: lessons learned.

Authors:  Wanda Anderson Loftin; Steven K Barnett; Peggy Summers Bunn; Patra Sullivan
Journal:  Diabetes Educ       Date:  2005 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 2.140

Review 7.  Personalised cancer medicine.

Authors:  Sarah E Jackson; John D Chester
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2014-05-12       Impact factor: 7.396

8.  Factors associated with participation in cancer prevention and control studies among rural Appalachian women.

Authors:  Corinne R Leach; Nancy E Schoenberg; Jennifer Hatcher
Journal:  Fam Community Health       Date:  2011 Apr-Jun

9.  Recruitment Techniques and Strategies in a Community-Based Colorectal Cancer Screening Study of Men and Women of African Ancestry.

Authors:  Stacy N Davis; Swapamthi Govindaraju; Brittany Jackson; Kimberly R Williams; Shannon M Christy; Susan T Vadaparampil; Gwendolyn P Quinn; David Shibata; Richard Roetzheim; Cathy D Meade; Clement K Gwede
Journal:  Nurs Res       Date:  2018 May/Jun       Impact factor: 2.381

10.  Attitudes to incorporating genomic risk assessments into population screening programs: the importance of purpose, context and deliberation.

Authors:  Stuart G Nicholls; Holly Etchegary; June C Carroll; David Castle; Louise Lemyre; Beth K Potter; Samantha Craigie; Brenda J Wilson
Journal:  BMC Med Genomics       Date:  2016-05-23       Impact factor: 3.063

View more
  6 in total

1.  Effect of Superstitious Beliefs and Risk Intuitions on Genetic Test Decisions.

Authors:  Kristen E Riley; Andrew L Sussman; Elizabeth Schofield; Dolores D Guest; Yvonne T Dailey; Matthew R Schwartz; David B Buller; Keith Hunley; Kimberly A Kaphingst; Marianne Berwick; Jennifer L Hay
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2021-08-28       Impact factor: 2.583

2.  Healthcare Predictors of Information Dissemination About Genetic Risks.

Authors:  Vida Henderson; Shaila M Strayhorn; Nyahne Q Bergeron; Desmona C Strahan; Pamela S Ganschow; Aditya S Khanna; Karriem Watson; Kent Hoskins; Yamile Molina
Journal:  Cancer Control       Date:  2022 Jan-Dec       Impact factor: 2.339

3.  Behavioral and Psychological Outcomes Associated with Skin Cancer Genetic Testing in Albuquerque Primary Care.

Authors:  Jennifer L Hay; Kimberly A Kaphingst; David Buller; Elizabeth Schofield; Kirsten Meyer White; Andrew Sussman; Dolores Guest; Yvonne T Dailey; Erika Robers; Matthew R Schwartz; Yuelin Li; Keith Hunley; Marianne Berwick
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2021-08-12       Impact factor: 6.639

4.  Are beliefs about the importance of genetics for cancer prevention and early detection associated with high risk cancer genetic testing in the U.S. Population?

Authors:  Sukh Makhnoon; Kristin G Maki; Robert Yu; Susan K Peterson; Sanjay Shete
Journal:  Prev Med Rep       Date:  2022-03-29

5.  Public perceptions of predictive testing for rheumatoid arthritis compared to breast cancer and early-onset Alzheimer's disease: a qualitative study.

Authors:  Juhi Singhal; Imogen Wells; Gwenda Simons; Sabine Wöhlke; Karim Raza; Marie Falahee
Journal:  BMC Rheumatol       Date:  2022-03-02

6.  Public Interest in Population Genetic Screening for Cancer Risk.

Authors:  Megan C Roberts; Kimberly S Foss; Gail E Henderson; Sabrina N Powell; Katherine W Saylor; Karen E Weck; Laura V Milko
Journal:  Front Genet       Date:  2022-07-22       Impact factor: 4.772

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.