Family history and perceived vulnerability to some common diseases: A study of young people and their parents

Journal of Medical Genetics

Volumn 33, Issue 6, 1996, Pages 485-492

  Ponder, Maggie ^a   Lee, Joanna ^a   Green, Josephine ^a   Richards, Martin ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Family health history; Perceived; Vulnerability; Young people

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; CANCER; DIABETES MELLITUS; DISEASE PREDISPOSITION; FAMILY HEALTH; FAMILY HISTORY; FEMALE; GENETIC PREDISPOSITION; GENETIC SUSCEPTIBILITY; HEALTH HAZARD; HEALTH PROMOTION; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; INTERVIEW; MALE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RISK FACTOR; SELF CONCEPT;

EID: 0029953034     PISSN: 00222593     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/jmg.33.6.485     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Fitzgerald FT. The tyranny of health. N Engl J Med 1994;331:196-8.
2. Welsh Planning Forum. Genomics: the impact of the new genetics on the NHS. June 1995.
3. Blaxter M, Paterson E. Mothers and daughters. London: Heinemann Education Books, 1982.
4. Richards MPM, Hallowell N, Green JM, Murton F, Statham H. Counselling families with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer: a psychosocial perspective. J Genet Couns 1995;4:219-33.
5. Richards MPM. Families, kinship and genetics. In: Marteau T, Richards MPM, eds. The troubled helix: social and psychological implications of the new human genetics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.
6. Green J, Murton F, Statham H. Psychosocial issues raised by a familial ovarian cancer register. J Med Genet 1993;30:575-9.
7. Davison C, Frankel S, Davey Smith G. Inheriting heart trouble: the relevance of common sense ideas to preventive measures. Health Education Research 1989;4:329-10.
8. Durant J, Hansen A, Bower M. Public understanding of the new genetics. In Marteau T, Richards MPA13 eds. The troubled helix: social and psychological implications of the new human gaietics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.
9. Department of Education and Science and the Welsh Office. Science in the national curriculum. London: HMSO, 1991.
10. House of Commons Science and Technology Committee. Human Genetics: the science and its consequences. 3rd report. London: HMSO, 1995.
11. Love RR, Evans AM, Josten DM. The accuracy of patient reports of a family history of cancer. J Chron Dis 1985;38:289-93.
12. Kee F, Tiret L, Nicaud JY, McCrum E, Evans A, Cambien F. Reliability of reported family history of myocardial infarction. BMJ 1993;307:1528-9.
13. Hastrup JL, Phillips SM, Vullo K, Kang G, Slomka L. Adolescents' knowledge of medical terminology and family health history. Health Psychol 1992;11:41-7.
14. Pope C, Mays N. Reaching the parts other methods cannot reach: an introduction to qualitative methods in health and health services research. BMJ 1995;311:42-5.
15. Weinstein ND. Why it won't happen to me: perceptions of risk factors and susceptibility. Health Psychol 1984;3:431-57.
16. Cope H, David A, Mann A. "Maybe it's a virus?": beliefs about viruses, symptoms, attributional styles and psychological health. J Psychosom Res 1994;38:89-98.
17. Richards MPM. Lay and professional knowledge of genetics and inheritance. J Public Understanding Sci (Submitted).
18. Richards MPM, Green JM. Attitudes towards prenatal screening for fetal abnormality and the detection of carriers of genetic disease: a discussion paper. J Reprod Infant Psychol 1993;11:49-56.
19. Stacey M. The new genetics: a feminist view. In Marteau T, Richards MPM, eds. The troubled helix: social and psychological implications of the new genetics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.
20. Kreuter MW, Strecher VJ. Changing inaccurate perceptions of health risk: results from a randomized trial. Health Psychol 1995;14:56-63.
21. Woman's Own, January 1994.