Understanding why negative genetic test results sometimes fail to reassure

American Journal of Medical Genetics

Volumn 119 A, Issue 3, 2003, Pages 340-347

  Michie, Susan ^a   Smith, Jonathan A ^b   Senior, Victoria ^c   Marteau, Theresa M ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^c KING'S COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Familial adenomatous polyposis; Illness representations; Negative test results; Predictive genetic testing; Qualitative; Test perception

Indexed keywords

ADENOMATOUS POLYP; ADULT; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; FEMALE; GENETIC ANALYSIS; GENETIC RISK; GENETIC SCREENING; HIGH RISK POPULATION; HUMAN; LABORATORY DIAGNOSIS; LABORATORY TEST; MALE; MULTIGENE FAMILY; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; PHENOMENOLOGY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; RISK ASSESSMENT; SCREENING TEST;

EID: 0042322502     PISSN: 15524825     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/ajmg.a.20200     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Berk T, Cohen Z, Bapat B, Gallinger S. 1999. Negative genetic test result in familial adenomatous polyposis - clinical screening implications. Dis Colon Rect 42:307-310.
2. Broadstock M, Michie S, Gray J, Mackay J, Marteau TM. 2000. Mutation searching in hereditary breast and ovarian cancer: Psychological consequences of a search offer. Psycho-Oncol 9:537-548.
3. Durant J. 1996. Public understanding of the new genetics. In: Marteau TM, Richards M, editors. The troubled helix: Social and psychological implications of the new human genetics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp 235-248.
4. Lerman C, Hughes C, Croyle RT, Main D, Durham D, Suyder C, et al. 2000. Prophylactic surgery and surveillance practices one year following BRCA1/2 genetic testing. Prev Med 1:75-80.
5. Lerman C, Croyle RT, Tercyak KP, Hamann H. 2002. Genetic testing: Psychological aspects and implications. J Cons Clin Psychol 70:784-797.
6. Leventhal H, Benyamini Y, Brownlee S, et al. 1997. Illness representations: Theoretical foundations. In: Petrie KJ, Weinman JA, editors. Perceptions of health and illness. Amsterdam: Harwood.
7. Michie S, Collins V, Halliday J, Marteau TM. 2002. Likelihood of attending bowel screening after a negative genetic test result: The possible influence of health professionals. Genet Test 6:307-311.
8. Michie S, McDonald V, Marteau TM. 1996. Understanding responses to predictive genetic testing: A grounded theory approach. Psychol Health 11:455-470.
9. Michie S, Bobrow M, Marteau TM. 2001. Predictive genetic testing in children and adults: A study of emotional impact. J Med Genet 8:519-526.
10. Michie S, Weinman J, Miller J, Collins V, Halliday J, Marteau TM. 2002. Predictive genetic testing: High risk expectations in the face of low risk information. J Behav Med 25:33-50.
11. Reeve J, Owens G, Winship IM. 2000. Psychological impact of predictive testing for colonic cancer. J Health Psychol 5:99-108.
12. Richards M. 1996. Families, kinship, and genetics. In: Marteau TM, Richards M, editors. The troubled helix: Social and psychological implications of the new human genetics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp 249-273.
13. Smith JA. 1995. Semi structured interviewing & qualitative analysis. In: Smith JA, Harre R, Van Langenhove L, editors. Rethinking methods in psychology. London: Sage.
14. Smith JA. 1996. Beyond the divide between cognition and discourse: Using interpretative phenomenological analysis in health psychology. Psychol Health 11:261-271.
15. Smith JA, Chapman E, editors. 2002. Interpretative phenomenological analysis and the new genetics. Special issue ofJ Health Psychol 7:125-206.
16. Smith JA, Jarman M, Osborn M. 1999. Doing interpretative phenomenological analysis. In: Murray M, Chamberlain K, editors. Qualitative health psychology: Theories and methods. London: Sage.
17. Williams JK, Schutte DL, Evers C, Holkup PA. 2000. Redefinition: Coping with normal results from predictive gene testing for neurodegenerative disorders. Res Nurs Health 23:260-269.