The impact of multiplex genetic testing on disease risk perceptions

Clinical Genetics

Volumn 87, Issue 2, 2015, Pages 117-123

  Shiloh, S ^a   deHeer, H D ^b,c   Peleg, S ^a   Hensley Alford, S ^d   Skapinsky, K ^b,e   Roberts, J S ^f   Hadley, D W ^b  

^a TEL AVIV UNIVERSITY   (Israel)

^b NATIONAL HUMAN GENOME RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

^c NORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d HENRY FORD HEALTH SYSTEM   (United States)

^e HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

^f UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

Author keywords

Family history; Genetic testing; Multiplex; Risk perception

Indexed keywords

BIOLOGICAL MARKER;

ADULT; ARTICLE; ASSESSMENT OF HUMANS; COLON CANCER; DEMOGRAPHY; DISEASE MARKER; FAMILY HISTORY; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; GENETIC MARKER; GENETIC RISK; GENETIC SCREENING; GENETIC SUSCEPTIBILITY; HEART DISEASE; HUMAN; HYPERTENSION; LUNG CANCER; MALE; MULTIPLEX GENETIC TESTING; MULTIPLEX INITIATIVE; NON INSULIN DEPENDENT DIABETES MELLITUS; NORMAL HUMAN; OSTEOPOROSIS; PERCEPTION; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SKIN CANCER; TELEPHONE INTERVIEW; TIME; GENETIC DISEASES, INBORN; GENETICS; RISK FACTOR;

ADULT; FEMALE; GENETIC DISEASES, INBORN; GENETIC TESTING; HUMANS; MALE; RISK FACTORS;

EID: 84921438012     PISSN: 00099163     EISSN: 13990004     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/cge.12403     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Mouchawar J, Hensley-Alford S, Laurion S et al. Impact of direct-to-consumer advertising for hereditary breast cancer testing on genetic services at a managed care organization: a naturally-occurring experiment. Genet Med 2005: 7 (3): 191-197.
2. Mouchawar J, Laurion S, Ritzwoller DP, Ellis J, Kulchak-Rahm A, Hensley-Alford S. Assessing controversial direct-to-consumer advertising for hereditary breast cancer testing: reactions from women and their physicians in a managed care organization. Am J Manag Care 2005: 11 (10): 601-608.
3. Collins M. Vision and work. Clin Exp Optom 2003: 86 (4): 203-204.
4. Rahm AK, Feigelson HS, Wagner N et al. Perception of direct-to-consumer genetic testing and direct-to-consumer advertising of genetic tests among members of a large managed care organization. J Genet Couns 2012: 21 (3): 448-461.
5. Offit K. Genomic profiles for disease risk: predictive or premature? JAMA 2008: 299 (11): 1353-1355.
6. McBride CM, Alford SH, Reid RJ, Larson EB, Baxevanis AD, Brody LC. Putting science over supposition in the arena of personalized genomics. Nat Genet 2008: 40 (8): 939-942.
7. Croyle RT, Lerman C. Risk communication in genetic testing for cancer susceptibility. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 1999: 25: 59-66.
8. Kaufman DJ, Bollinger JM, Dvoskin RL, Scott JA. Risky business: risk perception and the use of medical services among customers of DTC personal genetic testing. J Genet Couns 2012: 21 (3): 413-422.
9. Weinstein ND. Testing four competing theories of health-protective behavior. Health Psychol 1993: 12 (4): 324-333.
10. Ashida S, Koehly LM, Roberts JS, Chen CA, Hiraki S, Green RC. The role of disease perceptions and results sharing in psychological adaptation after genetic susceptibility testing: the REVEAL Study. Eur J Hum Genet 2010: 18 (12): 1296-1301.
11. Heshka JT, Palleschi C, Howley H, Wilson B, Wells PS. A systematic review of perceived risks, psychological and behavioral impacts of genetic testing. Genet Med 2008: 10 (1): 19-32.
12. Helmes AW. Application of the protection motivation theory to genetic testing for breast cancer risk. Prev Med 2002: 35 (5): 453-462.
13. Metcalfe KA, Poll A, Llacuachaqui M et al. Patient satisfaction and cancer-related distress among unselected Jewish women undergoing genetic testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2. Clin Genet 2010: 78 (5): 411-417.
14. Julian-Reynier C, Mancini J, Mouret-Fourme E et al. Cancer risk management strategies and perceptions of unaffected women 5 years after predictive genetic testing for BRCA1/2 mutations. Eur J Hum Genet 2011: 19 (5): 500-506.
15. McInerney-Leo A, Hadley D, Kase RG, Giambarresi TR, Struewing JP, Biesecker BB. BRCA1/2 testing in hereditary breast and ovarian cancer families III: risk perception and screening. Am J Med Genet A 2006: 140 (20): 2198-2206.
16. Schwartz MD, Peshkin BN, Hughes C, Main D, Isaacs C, Lerman C. Impact of BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation testing on psychologic distress in a clinic-based sample. J Clin Oncol 2002: 20 (2): 514-520.
17. Lerman C, Croyle RT, Tercyak KP, Hamann H. Genetic testing: psychological aspects and implications. J Consult Clin Psychol 2002: 70 (3): 784-797.
18. Shiloh S, Gerad L, Goldman B. Patients' information needs and decision-making processes: what can be learned from genetic counselees? Health Psychol 2006: 25 (2): 211-219.
19. Taylor S. A population-based survey in Australia of men's and women's perceptions of genetic risk and predictive genetic testing and implications for primary care. Public Health Genomics 2011: 14 (6): 325-336.
20. Cameron LD, Sherman KA, Marteau TM, Brown PM. Impact of genetic risk information and type of disease on perceived risk, anticipated affect, and expected consequences of genetic tests. Health Psychol 2009: 28 (3): 307-316.
21. Hanoch Y, Miron-Shatz T, Himmelstein M. Genetic testing and risk interpretation: how do women understand lifetime risk results? Judgment and Decision Making 2010: 5 (2): 116-123.
22. Reyna VF, Brainerd CJ. Fuzzy-trace theory - an interim synthesis. Learning and Individual Differences 1995: 7 (1): 1-75.
23. Reyna VF, Nelson WL, Han PK, Dieckmann NF. How numeracy influences risk comprehension and medical decision making. Psychol Bull 2009: 135 (6): 943-973.
24. French DP, Hevey D, Sutton S, Kinmonth AL, Marteau TM. Personal and social comparison information about health risk: reaction to information and information search. J Health Psychol 2006: 11 (3): 497-510.
25. Lipkus IM, Samsa G, Rimer BK. General performance on a numeracy scale among highly educated samples. Med Decis Making 2001: 21 (1): 37-44.
26. Shiloh S. Genetic counseling: a developing area of interest for psychologists. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice 1996: 27 (5): 475-486.
27. Linnenbringer E, Roberts JS, Hiraki S, Cupples LA, Green RC. "I know what you told me, but this is what I think:" perceived risk of Alzheimer disease among individuals who accurately recall their genetics-based risk estimate. Genet Med 2010: 12 (4): 219-227.
28. Green MJ, Biesecker BB, McInerney AM, Mauger D, Fost N. An interactive computer program can effectively educate patients about genetic testing for breast cancer susceptibility. Am J Med Genet 2001: 103 (1): 16-23.
29. Mouchawar J, Byers T, Cutter G, Dignan M, Michael S. A study of the relationship between family history of breast cancer and knowledge of breast cancer genetic testing prerequisites. Cancer Detect Prev 1999: 23 (1): 22-30.
30. Marteau TM, Weinman J. Self-regulation and the behavioural response to DNA risk information: a theoretical analysis and framework for future research. Soc Sci Med 2006: 62 (6): 1360-1368.
31. Michie S, Weinman J, Miller J, Collins V, Halliday J, Marteau TM. Predictive genetic testing: high risk expectations in the face of low risk information. J Behav Med 2002: 25 (1): 33-50.
32. Cameron LD, Marteau TM, Brown PM, Klein WM, Sherman KA. Communication strategies for enhancing understanding of the behavioral implications of genetic and biomarker tests for disease risk: the role of coherence. J Behav Med 2012: 35 (3): 286-298.
33. Loewenstein GF, Weber EU, Hsee CK, Welch N. Risk as feelings. Psychol Bull 2001: 127 (2): 267-286.
34. Alford SH, McBride CM, Reid RJ, Larson EB, Baxevanis AD, Brody LC. Participation in genetic testing research varies by social group. Pub Hlth Genom 2011: 14 (2): 85-93.
35. McBride CM, Alford SH, Reid RJ, Larson EB, Baxevanis AD, Brody LC. Characteristics of users of online personalized genomic risk assessments: implications for physician-patient interactions. Genet Med 2009: 11 (8): 582-587.
36. Kaphingst KA, McBride CM, Wade C et al. Patients' understanding of and responses to multiplex genetic susceptibility test results. Genet Med 2012: 681-687.
37. Gueorguieva R, Krystal JH. Move over ANOVA: progress in analyzing repeated-measures data and its reflection in papers published in the Archives of General Psychiatry. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2004: 61 (3): 310-317.
38. Alford SH, McBride CM, Reid RJ, Larson EB, Baxevanis AD, Brody LC. Participation in genetic testing research varies by social group. Public Health Genomics 2011: 14 (2): 85-93.
39. Preacher KJ, Curran PJ, Bauer DJ. Computational tools for probing interactions in multiple linear regression, multilevel modeling, and latent curve analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics 2006: 31 (4): 437-448.
40. Wang C, Sen A, Ruffin MT et al. Family history assessment impact on disease risk perceptions. Am J Prev Med 2012: 43 (4): 392-398.
41. Senior V, Smith JA, Michie S, Marteau TM. Making sense of risk: an interpretative phenomenological analysis of vulnerability to heart disease. J Health Psychol 2002: 7 (2): 157-168.
42. Hilgart J, Mercer J, Thirlaway K. Individuals' experiences of, and responses to, a negative genetic test result for familial hypercholesterolaemia. J Health Psychol 2013: 18 (3): 339-349.
43. Renner B. Biased reasoning: adaptive responses to health risk feedback. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 2004: 30 (3): 384-396.
44. Peters E, McCaul KD, Stefanek M, Nelson W. A heuristics approach to understanding cancer risk perception: contributions from judgment and decision-making research. Ann Behav Med 2006: 31 (1): 45-52.
45. McAllister M. Personal theories of inheritance, coping strategies, risk perception and engagement in hereditary non-polyposis colon cancer families offered genetic testing. Clin Genet 2003: 64 (3): 179-189.
46. Weinstein ND, Kwitel A, McCaul KD, Magnan RE, Gerrard M, Gibbons FX. Risk perceptions: assessment and relationship to influenza vaccination. Health Psychol 2007: 26 (2): 146-151.
47. Wade CHM, McBride CM, Kardia SLR, Brody LC. Considerations for designing a. Public Health Genomics 2010: 13 (3): 155-165.
48. Shiloh S, Wade CH, Roberts JS, Alford SH, Biesecker BB. Associations between risk perceptions and worry about common diseases: a between- and within-subjects examination. Psychol Health 2013: 28 (4): 434-449.
49. Weinstein ND, Klein WM. Resistance of personal risk perceptions to debiasing interventions. Health Psychol 1995: 14 (2): 132-140.
50. Ranby KW, Aiken LS, Gerend MA, Erchull MJ. Perceived susceptibility measures are not interchangeable: absolute, direct comparative, and indirect comparative risk. Health Psychol 2010: 29 (1): 20-28.
51. Vasan RS et al. Residual lifetime risk for developing hypertension in middle-aged women and men: the Framingham Heart Study. JAMA 2002: 287 (8): 1003-1010.