Literature DB >> 35552458

Assessment of melanoma precision prevention materials incorporating MC1R genetic risk information.

John Charles A Lacson1, Stephanie M Forgas1, Scarlet H Doyle1, Lu Qian2, Jocelyn Del Rio1, Stella Valavanis1, Rodrigo Carvajal3, Guillermo Gonzalez-Calderon3, Youngchul Kim4, Richard G Roetzheim5, Susan T Vadaparampil6, Peter A Kanetsky1.   

Abstract

Few studies have examined cognitive responses to mailed precision prevention materials. MC1R is a robust, well-described melanoma susceptibility marker. The purpose was to assess cognitive responses to generic or precision prevention materials incorporating MC1R genetic risk. Non-Hispanic White participants (n = 1134) enrolled in a randomized controlled trial received either precision prevention materials incorporating MC1R genetic risk (higher/average) or generic prevention (standard) materials. Six months after baseline, 808 (71.3%) participants reported on the amount of prevention materials read (5-point scale); believability and clarity of materials; intention to change preventive behaviors (7-point Likert scale); and recall of their MC1R genetic risk. Comparisons were conducted using Kruskal-Wallis and chi-squared tests. Overall, participants read most to all (Mdn = 4, IQR = 2) of the prevention materials, reported high believability (Mdn = 7, IQR = 1) and clarity (Mdn = 7, IQR = 1), and moderate intention to change preventive behaviors (Mdn = 5, IQR = 2). Higher-risk participants reported slightly less clarity (Mdn = 6, IQR = 2) than either average-risk (Mdn = 6, IQR = 1, p = 2.50 × 10-3) or standard participants (Mdn = 7, IQR = 1, p = 2.30 × 10-5); and slightly less believability (Mdn = 6, IQR = 1) than standard participants (Mdn = 7, IQR = 1, p = .005). Higher-risk participants were 2.21 times as likely (95% CI = 1.43-3.43) to misremember or forget their risk compared to average-risk participants; misremembering was observed only among higher-risk participants (14%). Mailed precision prevention information were mostly read, highly believable and clear, and resulted in moderate levels of intention to change sun protection behaviors, bolstering the feasibility of population-level precision prevention. Defensive reactions may explain lower clarity, believability, and higher incorrect risk recall among higher-risk participants. © Society of Behavioral Medicine 2022. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Genetic testing; MC1R; Melanoma; Precision prevention; Public health genomics

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35552458      PMCID: PMC9274978          DOI: 10.1093/tbm/ibac034

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Transl Behav Med        ISSN: 1613-9860            Impact factor:   3.626


  13 in total

Review 1.  Meta-analysis of risk factors for cutaneous melanoma: I. Common and atypical naevi.

Authors:  Sara Gandini; Francesco Sera; Maria Sofia Cattaruzza; Paolo Pasquini; Damiano Abeni; Peter Boyle; Carmelo Francesco Melchi
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 9.162

Review 2.  Meta-analysis of risk factors for cutaneous melanoma: III. Family history, actinic damage and phenotypic factors.

Authors:  Sara Gandini; Francesco Sera; Maria Sofia Cattaruzza; Paolo Pasquini; Roberto Zanetti; Cinzia Masini; Peter Boyle; Carmelo Francesco Melchi
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 9.162

3.  Numeracy, information seeking, and self-efficacy in managing health: an analysis using the 2007 Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS).

Authors:  Yixin Chen; Thomas Hugh Feeley
Journal:  Health Commun       Date:  2013-11-22

4.  Melanocortin 1 receptor and risk of cutaneous melanoma: a meta-analysis and estimates of population burden.

Authors:  Patricia F Williams; Catherine M Olsen; Nicholas K Hayward; David C Whiteman
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2011-04-01       Impact factor: 7.396

5.  Brief questions to identify patients with inadequate health literacy.

Authors:  Lisa D Chew; Katharine A Bradley; Edward J Boyko
Journal:  Fam Med       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 1.756

6.  Melanoma genetic testing, counseling, and adherence to skin cancer prevention and detection behaviors.

Authors:  Karen Glanz; Kathryn Volpicelli; Peter A Kanetsky; Michael E Ming; Lynn M Schuchter; Christopher Jepson; Susan M Domchek; Katrina Armstrong
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2013-02-07       Impact factor: 4.254

7.  Direct-to-consumer genetic testing: an assessment of genetic counselors' knowledge and beliefs.

Authors:  Kathryn T Hock; Kurt D Christensen; Beverly M Yashar; J Scott Roberts; Sarah E Gollust; Wendy R Uhlmann
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2011-04       Impact factor: 8.822

8.  Implementing an Internet-Delivered Skin Cancer Genetic Testing Intervention to Improve Sun Protection Behavior in a Diverse Population: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial.

Authors:  Jennifer L Hay; Marianne Berwick; Kate Zielaskowski; Kirsten Am White; Vivian M Rodríguez; Erika Robers; Dolores D Guest; Andrew Sussman; Yvonne Talamantes; Matthew R Schwartz; Jennie Greb; Jessica Bigney; Kimberly A Kaphingst; Keith Hunley; David B Buller
Journal:  JMIR Res Protoc       Date:  2017-04-25

9.  Effects of health literacy skills, educational attainment, and level of melanoma risk on responses to personalized genomic testing.

Authors:  Kimberly A Kaphingst; Erva Khan; 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:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2020-08-01

10.  A Randomized Trial of Precision Prevention Materials to Improve Primary and Secondary Melanoma Prevention Activities among Individuals with Limited Melanoma Risk Phenotypes.

Authors:  John Charles A Lacson; Scarlet H Doyle; Lu Qian; Jocelyn Del Rio; Stephanie M Forgas; Stella Valavanis; Rodrigo Carvajal; Guillermo Gonzalez-Calderon; Youngchul Kim; Richard G Roetzheim; Steven K Sutton; Susan T Vadaparampil; Peter A Kanetsky
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2021-06-23       Impact factor: 6.639

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.