Literature DB >> 9415688

Patients' attitudes about autonomy and confidentiality in genetic testing for breast-ovarian cancer susceptibility.

J L Benkendorf1, J E Reutenauer, C A Hughes, N Eads, J Willison, M Powers, C Lerman.   

Abstract

The identification of BRCA1 and BRCA2, two breast-ovarian cancer susceptibility genes, has brought many ethical and social issues to the forefront. This paper presents the results of a survey assessing the attitudes of 238 unaffected first-degree relatives of women with breast or ovarian cancer regarding the ethical issues of autonomy and confidentiality as they relate to BRCA1/2 testing. Baseline knowledge about BRCA1/2 and ethnic and psychosocial characteristics of our study population were examined to determine their association with women's attitudes. The majority of women (86-87%) felt that health care providers should not disclose the results of genetic tests for breast-ovarian cancer susceptibility to insurance companies or employers without written consent; however, only 56-57% felt that written consent should be required for a spouse or immediate family to receive this information. Ninety-eight percent of the women surveyed agreed that genetic testing for breast-ovarian cancer risk should be voluntary. Likewise, most women (95%) agreed that a person should be able to have genetic testing against a doctor's recommendation and 88% of the women surveyed agreed that parents should be able to consent to genetic susceptibility testing on behalf of their minor children. African American women were less concerned than Caucasian women about the protection of confidentiality in families, they were more likely to agree that an individual should still have access to testing when their physicians recommended against it, and they were more supportive of parents' rights to consent to genetic predisposition testing on behalf of their minor children. Women with coping styles characterized by higher optimism were more likely to favor access to genetic testing when a physician recommended against it, and to support parents' rights to consent to testing of their minor children. Therefore, the setting and manner in which genetic counseling and testing are delivered must be appropriately tailored to reflect these attitudinal differences and preferences.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Empirical Approach; Genetics and Reproduction; Professional Patient Relationship

Mesh:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9415688     DOI: 10.1002/(sici)1096-8628(19971219)73:3<296::aid-ajmg13>3.0.co;2-e

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Med Genet        ISSN: 0148-7299


  21 in total

Review 1.  Results of genetic testing: when confidentiality conflicts with a duty to warn relatives.

Authors:  W C Leung; E C Mariman; J C van der Wouden; H van Amergongen; C Weijer
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2000-12-09

2.  Should we genetically test everyone for haemochromatosis?

Authors:  K Allen; R Williamson
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  1999-04       Impact factor: 2.903

3.  Facilitating family communication about predictive genetic testing: probands' perceptions.

Authors:  Clara L Gaff; Veronica Collins; Tiffany Symes; Jane Halliday
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 2.537

4.  Cultural aspects of cancer genetics: setting a research agenda.

Authors:  B Meiser; M Eisenbruch; K Barlow-Stewart; K Tucker; Z Steel; D Goldstein
Journal:  J Med Genet       Date:  2001-07       Impact factor: 6.318

5.  Genetic testing in asymptomatic minors: background considerations towards ESHG Recommendations.

Authors:  Pascal Borry; Gerry Evers-Kiebooms; Martina C Cornel; Angus Clarke; Kris Dierickx
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2009-03-11       Impact factor: 4.246

6.  Knowledge about genetic risk for breast cancer and perceptions of genetic testing in a sociodemographically diverse sample.

Authors:  K A Donovan; D C Tucker
Journal:  J Behav Med       Date:  2000-02

7.  Transmitting genetic risk information in families: attitudes about disclosing the identity of relatives.

Authors:  J T Wilcke; N Seersholm; A Kok-Jensen; A Dirksen
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  1999-09       Impact factor: 11.025

8.  Participation of low-income women in genetic cancer risk assessment and BRCA 1/2 testing: the experience of a safety-net institution.

Authors:  Ian K Komenaka; Jesse N Nodora; Lisa Madlensky; Lisa M Winton; Meredith A Heberer; Richard B Schwab; Jeffrey N Weitzel; Maria Elena Martinez
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2015-12-21

Review 9.  Patient perspectives of medical confidentiality: a review of the literature.

Authors:  Pamela Sankar; Susan Mora; Jon F Merz; Nora L Jones
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2003-08       Impact factor: 5.128

10.  When family means more (or less) than genetics: the intersection of culture, family and genomics.

Authors:  Barbara Burns McGrath; Karen L Edwards
Journal:  J Transcult Nurs       Date:  2009-07       Impact factor: 1.959

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.