Marci L B Schwartz1, William M P Klein2, Lori A H Erby3, Christy H Smith4, Debra L Roter5. 1. National Human Genome Research Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, USA; Genomic Medicine Institute, Geisinger, Danville, USA. Electronic address: mlbschwartz@geisinger.edu. 2. National Human Genome Research Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, USA; Behavioral Research Program, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, USA. 3. National Human Genome Research Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, USA. 4. Department of Genetic Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, USA. 5. Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Department of Health, Behavior and Society, Baltimore, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine how the method of presenting testing options and a provider recommendation can influence a decision about genetic testing for inherited cancer predispositions. METHODS: An online hypothetical vignette study was completed by 454 healthy volunteers. Participants were randomized to receive one of two survey versions which differed by genetic testing choice presentation. One group was shown three options simultaneously (no test, 5-gene or 15-gene), and a second group received the 15-gene option after choosing between the no test and 5-gene options. A preference-based provider recommendation was also incorporated. We examined the effect of these interventions on test selection. RESULTS: Participants in the simultaneous group were more likely to choose a genetic test than those in the sequential group (OR: 2.35, p=0.003). This effect was no longer observed when individuals who had selected no-test in the sequential group were told about the 15-gene test (OR: 1.03 p=0.932). Incorporating a provider recommendation into the hypothetical scenario led to more preference-consistent choices (χ2 = 8.53, p < 0.0035,). CONCLUSIONS: A larger menu of testing choices led to higher testing uptake. A preference-based clinician recommendation resulted in more preference-consistent choices. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: The structuring of testing options and preference-sensitive recommendations appear to facilitate informed testing decisions.
OBJECTIVE: To determine how the method of presenting testing options and a provider recommendation can influence a decision about genetic testing for inherited cancer predispositions. METHODS: An online hypothetical vignette study was completed by 454 healthy volunteers. Participants were randomized to receive one of two survey versions which differed by genetic testing choice presentation. One group was shown three options simultaneously (no test, 5-gene or 15-gene), and a second group received the 15-gene option after choosing between the no test and 5-gene options. A preference-based provider recommendation was also incorporated. We examined the effect of these interventions on test selection. RESULTS: Participants in the simultaneous group were more likely to choose a genetic test than those in the sequential group (OR: 2.35, p=0.003). This effect was no longer observed when individuals who had selected no-test in the sequential group were told about the 15-gene test (OR: 1.03 p=0.932). Incorporating a provider recommendation into the hypothetical scenario led to more preference-consistent choices (χ2 = 8.53, p < 0.0035,). CONCLUSIONS: A larger menu of testing choices led to higher testing uptake. A preference-based clinician recommendation resulted in more preference-consistent choices. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: The structuring of testing options and preference-sensitive recommendations appear to facilitate informed testing decisions.
Authors: Bronson D Riley; Julie O Culver; Cécile Skrzynia; Leigha A Senter; June A Peters; Josephine W Costalas; Faith Callif-Daley; Sherry C Grumet; Katherine S Hunt; Rebecca S Nagy; Wendy C McKinnon; Nancie M Petrucelli; Robin L Bennett; Angela M Trepanier Journal: J Genet Couns Date: 2011-12-02 Impact factor: 2.537
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: Stephen E Lincoln; Yuya Kobayashi; Michael J Anderson; Shan Yang; Andrea J Desmond; Meredith A Mills; Geoffrey B Nilsen; Kevin B Jacobs; Federico A Monzon; Allison W Kurian; James M Ford; Leif W Ellisen Journal: J Mol Diagn Date: 2015-07-22 Impact factor: 5.568
Authors: Michael J Hall; Andrea D Forman; Robert Pilarski; Georgia Wiesner; Veda N Giri Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2014-09 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Gillian W Hooker; Holly Peay; Lori Erby; Theodore Bayless; Barbara B Biesecker; Debra L Roter Journal: Inflamm Bowel Dis Date: 2014-05 Impact factor: 5.325
Authors: Sue Richards; Nazneen Aziz; Sherri Bale; David Bick; Soma Das; Julie Gastier-Foster; Wayne W Grody; Madhuri Hegde; Elaine Lyon; Elaine Spector; Karl Voelkerding; Heidi L Rehm Journal: Genet Med Date: 2015-03-05 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Kelly E Ormond; Miranda L G Hallquist; Adam H Buchanan; Danielle Dondanville; Mildred K Cho; Maureen Smith; Myra Roche; Kyle B Brothers; Curtis R Coughlin; Laura Hercher; Louanne Hudgins; Seema Jamal; Howard P Levy; Misha Raskin; Melissa Stosic; Wendy Uhlmann; Karen E Wain; Erin Currey; W Andrew Faucett Journal: Genet Med Date: 2018-07-06 Impact factor: 8.822