The effect of disease risk probability and disease type on interest in clinic-based versus direct-to-consumer genetic testing services

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Kerry Sherman ; Laura-Kate Shaw ; Katrina Champion…
• 关键词：Direct ; to ; consumer ; Genetic testing ; Risk probability ; Perceived manageability ; Perceived severity
• 刊名：Journal of Behavioral Medicine
• 出版年：2015
• 出版时间：October 2015
• 年：2015
• 卷：38
• 期：5
• 页码：706-714
• 全文大小：423 KB
• 参考文献：Barlow-Stewart, K. (2007). DNA genetic testing—Screening for genetic conditions and genetic susceptibility [Fact sheet]. In Centre for Genetics Education (Ed.), The Australasian genetics resource book. Retrieved 16th October, 2014 from http://?www.?nhmrc.?gov.?au/?_?files_?nhmrc/?file/?your_?health/?egenetics/?FS21-dna-genetic-testing.?pdf
  Barnoy, S. (2007). Genetic testing for late-onset diseases: effect of disease controllability, test predictivity, and gender on the decision to take the test. Genetic Testing, 11, 187-92. doi:10.-089/?gte.-006.-509 CrossRef PubMed
  Browne, J. L., Ventura, A., Mosely, K., & Speight, J. (2013). ‘I call it the blame and shame disease- A qualitative study about perceptions of social stigma surrounding type 2 diabetes. British Medical Journal Open, 3. doi:10.-136/?bmjopen-2013-003384
  Burt, R., & Neklason, D. W. (2005). Genetic testing for inherited colon cancer. Gastroenterology, 128, 1696-716.CrossRef PubMed
  Cameron, L. D., Marteau, T. M., Brown, P. M., Klein, W. M., & Sherman, K. A. (2011). Communication strategies for enhancing understanding of the behavioral implications of genetic and biomarker tests for disease risk: The role of coherence. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 35, 286-98. doi:10.-007/?s10865-011-9361-5 CrossRef PubMed
  Cameron, L. D., & Muller, C. (2009). Psychosocial aspects of genetic testing. Current Opinion in Psychiatry, 22, 218-23. doi:10.-097/?YCO.-b013e3283252d80-/span> CrossRef PubMed
  Cameron, L. D., Sherman, K. A., Marteau, T. M., & Brown, P. M. (2009). Impact of genetic risk information and type of disease on perceived risk, anticipated affect, and expected consequences of genetic tests. Health Psychology, 28, 307-16. doi:10.-037/?a0013947 CrossRef PubMed
  Caulfield, T., Ries, N. M., Ray, P. N., Shuman, C., & Wilson, B. (2010). Direct-to-consumer genetic testing: Good, bad or benign? Clinical Genetics, 77, 101-05. doi:10.-111/?j.-399-0004.-009.-1291.?x CrossRef PubMed
  de Bruin, W. B., Fischhoff, B., Millstein, S. G., & Halpern-Felsher, B. L. (2000). Verbal and numerical expressions of probability: “It’s a fifty–fifty chance- Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 81, 115-31. doi:10.-006/?obhd.-999.-868
  Diabetes Australia. (2013). Type 2 diabetes. http://?www.?diabetesaustrali?a.?com.?au/?Understanding-Diabetes/?What-is-Diabetes/?Type-2-Diabetes/-Preventing . Type 2 Diabetes.
  easyDNA. (2014). Genetic predisposition test. http://?www.?easydna.?com.?au/?content/?index.?php??section_?id=-7
  Edwards, K. T., & Huang, C. J. (2014). Bridging the consumer-medical divide: How to regulate direct-to-consumer genetic testing. Hastings Center Report, 44, 17-9. doi:10.-002/?hast.-10 PubMed
  Egglestone, C., Morris, A., & O’Brien, A. (2013). Effect of direct-to-consumer genetic tests on health behaviour and anxiety: A survey of consumers and potential consumers. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 22, 565-75. doi:10.-007/?s10897-013-9582-6 CrossRef PubMed
  Etchegary, H. (2014). Public attitudes toward genetic risk testing and its role in healthcare. Personalized Medicine, 11, 509-22.CrossRef
  Goldsmith, L., Jackson, L., O’Connor, A., & Skirton, H. (2012). Direct-to-consumer genomic testing: Systematic review of the literature on user perspectives. European Journal of Human Genetics, 20, 811-16. doi:10.-038/?ejhg.-012.-8 PubMed Central CrossRef PubMed
  Gollust, S. E., Hull, S., & Wilfond, B. S. (2002). Limitations of direct-to-consumer advertising for clinical genetic testing. Journal of the American Medical Association, 288, 1762-767. doi:10.-001/?jama.-88.-4.-762 CrossRef PubMed
  Green, C. A., & Pope, C. R. (1999). Gender, psychosocial factors and the use of medical services: A longitudinal analysis. Social Science & Medicine, 48, 1363-372. doi:10.-016/?S0277-9536(98)00440-7
  Hampel, H., & Peltomaki, P. (2000). Hereditary colorectal cancer: Risk assessment and management. Clinical Genetics, 58, 89-7. doi:10.-034/?j.-399-0004.-000.-80201.?x CrossRef PubMed
  Harris, P. R., & Smith, V. (2005). When the risks are low: The impact of absolute and comparative information on disturbance and understanding in US and UK samples. Psychology & Health, 20, 319-30. doi:10.-080/-887044051233131-689 CrossRef
  Hock, K. T., Christensen, K. D., Yashar, B. M., Roberts, J. S., Gollust, S. E., & Uhlmann, W. R. (2011). Direct-to-consumer genetic testing: An assessment of genetic counselors-knowledge and beliefs. Genetics in Medicine, 13, 325-32. doi:10.-097/?GIM.-b013e3182011636-/span> PubMed Central CrossRef PubMed
  Javitt, G. (2008). Direct-to-consumer genetic testing: Empowering or endangering the public? [Issue brief]. Washington: Genetics and Public Policy Center. Retrieved 28th October, 2014 from http://?www.?dnapolicy.?org/?images/?issuebriefpdfs/-006_?DTC_?Issue_?Brief.?pdf
  Kovess-Masfety, V., Boyd, A., van de Velde, S., de Graaf, R., Vilagut,
• 作者单位：Kerry Sherman (1) (2)
  Laura-Kate Shaw (3)
  Katrina Champion (4)
  Fernanda Caldeira (5)
  Margaret McCaskill (3)
  
  1. Centre for Emotional Health, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia
  2. Westmead Breast Cancer Institute, Westmead Hospital, Sydney, Australia
  3. Department of Psychology, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia
  4. National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, University of NSW, Sydney, Australia
  5. University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
  
• 刊物类别：Behavioral Science
• 刊物主题：Psychology
  Health Psychology
  Clinical Psychology
  Public Health
  
• 出版者：Springer Netherlands
• ISSN：1573-3521

文摘

The effect of disease-specific cognitions on interest in clinic-based and direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing was assessed. Participants (N = 309) responded to an online hypothetical scenario and received genetic testing-related messages that varied by risk probability (25, 50, 75 %) and disease type (Alzheimer’s disease vs. Type 2 Diabetes). Post-manipulation interest increased for both testing types, but was greater for clinic-based testing. Interest was greater for Type 2 Diabetes than for Alzheimer’s disease, the latter perceived as more severe and likely, and less treatable and preventable. For DTC testing only, participants allocated to the high risk condition (75 %) had greater testing interest than those in the low (25 %) category. DTC testing is perceived as a viable, but less preferred, option compared with clinic-based testing. Particularly when considering DTC genetic testing, there is a need to emphasize subjective disease-related perceptions, including risk probability. Keywords Direct-to-consumer Genetic testing Risk probability Perceived manageability Perceived severity