Literature DB >> 34797550

Comprehension of skin cancer genetic risk feedback in primary care patients.

Erva Khan1, Kimberly A Kaphingst2, Kirsten Meyer White3, Andrew Sussman3, Dolores Guest3, Elizabeth Schofield4, Yvonne T Dailey3, Erika Robers3, Matthew R Schwartz3, Yuelin Li4, David Buller5, Keith Hunley3, Marianne Berwick3, Jennifer L Hay4.   

Abstract

Few studies have examined comprehension and miscomprehension of genetic risk feedback for moderate-risk genes in the general population. We examined the prevalence and nature of accurate and inaccurate genetic risk feedback comprehension among those who received genetic testing for melanocortin-1-receptor (MC1R) gene variants that confer moderate melanoma risk. Participants (N = 145 Albuquerque, NM) were tested as part of a randomized controlled trial. Two weeks after receiving MC1R genetic risk feedback, participants answered open-ended questions regarding their reactions to the MC1R feedback report. Participants' comprehension of their feedback (average-risk or higher-risk for melanoma) was evaluated through qualitative analysis of open-ended responses. Most participants demonstrated comprehension of their feedback results (i.e., 63% of average-risk participants [ARPs]; 51% of higher-risk participants [HRPs]). Miscomprehension was evident in fewer participants (i.e., 16% of ARPs, 11% of HRPs). A few ARPs misunderstood the purpose of testing, whereas a few HRPs reported confusion about the meaning of their risk feedback. Some participants' responses to the open-ended questions were too ambiguous to ascertain comprehension or miscomprehension (i.e., 21% of ARPs, 38% of HRPs). Taken together, these findings suggest that genetic testing feedback for MC1R risk variants is largely comprehensible to general population participants. This study adds to the work examining comprehension and usage of common, moderate risk genetic information in public health contexts. However, to maximize the utility of genetic risk information in the general population, further research is needed to investigate and address areas where common genetic risk feedback misunderstandings occur.
© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Genetic testing; Genomic comprehension; MC1R; Melanoma; Risk perception

Year:  2021        PMID: 34797550      PMCID: PMC8799794          DOI: 10.1007/s12687-021-00566-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Community Genet        ISSN: 1868-310X


  29 in total

1.  Participation in genetic testing research varies by social group.

Authors:  Sharon Hensley Alford; Colleen M McBride; Robert J Reid; Eric B Larson; Andreas D Baxevanis; Lawrence C Brody
Journal:  Public Health Genomics       Date:  2010-03-18       Impact factor: 2.000

Review 2.  The future of direct-to-consumer clinical genetic tests.

Authors:  Felix W Frueh; Henry T Greely; Robert C Green; Stuart Hogarth; Sue Siegel
Journal:  Nat Rev Genet       Date:  2011-06-01       Impact factor: 53.242

3.  Effect of direct-to-consumer genomewide profiling to assess disease risk.

Authors:  Cinnamon S Bloss; Nicholas J Schork; Eric J Topol
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2011-01-12       Impact factor: 91.245

4.  Making sense of genetic risk: A qualitative focus-group study of healthy participants in genomic research.

Authors:  Jennifer Viberg Johansson; Pär Segerdahl; Ulrika Hösterey Ugander; Mats G Hansson; Sophie Langenskiöld
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2017-09-18

5.  Psychosocial Effects of Multigene Panel Testing in the Context of Cancer Genomics.

Authors:  Jada G Hamilton; Mark E Robson
Journal:  Hastings Cent Rep       Date:  2019-05       Impact factor: 2.683

6.  Australian study on public knowledge of human genetics and health.

Authors:  C Molster; T Charles; A Samanek; P O'Leary
Journal:  Public Health Genomics       Date:  2008-10-15       Impact factor: 2.000

7.  Marshaling the Translational Potential of MC1R for Precision Risk Assessment of Melanoma.

Authors:  Peter A Kanetsky; Jennifer L Hay
Journal:  Cancer Prev Res (Phila)       Date:  2017-12-15

8.  Comprehension and personal value of negative non-diagnostic genetic panel testing.

Authors:  Christin Hoell; Sharon Aufox; Nora Nashawaty; Melanie F Myers; Maureen E Smith
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2020-09-18       Impact factor: 2.537

9.  Medicine, market and communication: ethical considerations in regard to persuasive communication in direct-to-consumer genetic testing services.

Authors:  Manuel Schaper; Silke Schicktanz
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2018-06-05       Impact factor: 2.652

10.  Neutral, Negative, or Negligible? Changes in Patient Perceptions of Disease Risk Following Receipt of a Negative Genomic Screening Result.

Authors:  Kelsey Stuttgen; Joel Pacyna; Iftikhar Kullo; Richard Sharp
Journal:  J Pers Med       Date:  2020-04-17
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.