Advertisement

Journal of Genetic Counseling

, Volume 25, Issue 2, pp 385–394 | Cite as

Genetic Knowledge Among Participants in the Coriell Personalized Medicine Collaborative

  • Tara J. SchmidlenEmail author
  • Laura Scheinfeldt
  • Ruixue Zhaoyang
  • Rachel Kasper
  • Kevin Sweet
  • Erynn S. Gordon
  • Margaret Keller
  • Cathy Stack
  • Neda Gharani
  • Mary B. Daly
  • Joseph Jarvis
  • Michael F. Christman
Original Research

Abstract

Genetic literacy is essential for the effective integration of genomic information into healthcare; yet few recent studies have been conducted to assess the current state of this knowledge base. Participants in the Coriell Personalized Medicine Collaborative (CPMC), a prospective study assessing the impact of personalized genetic risk reports for complex diseases and drug response on behavior and health outcomes, completed genetic knowledge questionnaires and other surveys through an online portal. To assess the association between genetic knowledge and genetic education background, multivariate linear regression was performed. 4 062 participants completed a genetic knowledge and genetic education background questionnaire. Most were older (mean age: 50), Caucasian (90 %), female (59 %), highly educated (69 % bachelor’s or higher), with annual household income over $100 000 (49 %). Mean percent correct was 76 %. Controlling for demographics revealed that health care providers, participants previously exposed to genetics, and participants with ‘better than most’ self-rated knowledge were significantly more likely to have a higher knowledge score (p < 0.001). Overall, genetic knowledge was high with previous genetic education experience predictive of higher genetic knowledge score. Education is likely to improve genetic literacy, an important component to expanded use of genomics in personalized medicine.

Keywords

Genetic knowledge Genetic literacy Health literacy Education Personalized medicine 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by grants from the William G. Rohrer Foundation, the RNR Foundation, the National Human Genome Research Institute of the National Institutes of Health (R21HG006575), the National Institute of General Medical Sciences of the National Institutes of Health Pharmacogenomics Research Network (U01 GM92655), the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute (U01 HL105198), and a generous grant from the endowment of the Coriell Institute for Medical Research. We are extremely grateful for the participants of the Coriell Personalized Medicine Collaborative for their continued participation in the study and would like to thank all of the participants who took the time to complete the genetic knowledge questionnaire. The CPMC would not be possible without the efforts of a team of staff including: Daniel Lynch, Norman Gerry, Courtney Kronenthal, Matthew Chimento, Susan Delaney, Lisa Wawak, Ashley Nasuti, Andrew Brangan, Victoria Clements, Indira Jain-Figueroa, Mark Bellafante, Philip Hodges, Leo Lnu, Shane Kushin, Joe Harrison, and Corey Zuares. Special thanks are also owed to CPMC collaborators: Amy Sturm, Joseph McElroy, and Amanda Toland at The Ohio State University; J. Scott Roberts at the University of Michigan; Fox Chase Cancer Center and The United States Air Force. All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Declaration of Helsinki of 1975, as revised in 2000. Informed consent was obtained from all participants included in the study. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

Conflict of Interest

Authors Schmidlen, Scheinfeldt, Zhaoyang, Kasper, Sweet, Gordon, Keller, Stack, Gharani, Daly, Jarvis, and Christman declare no conflict of interest.

Human Studies and Informed Consent

All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000 (5). Informed consent was obtained from all participants for being included in the study.

Animal Studies

No animal studies were carried out by the authors for this article.

Supplementary material

10897_2015_9883_MOESM1_ESM.docm (15 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCM 15 kb)
10897_2015_9883_MOESM2_ESM.docm (16 kb)
ESM 2 (DOCM 15 kb)
10897_2015_9883_MOESM3_ESM.docm (16 kb)
ESM 3 (DOCM 15 kb)
10897_2015_9883_MOESM4_ESM.docm (16 kb)
ESM 4 (DOCM 15 kb)
10897_2015_9883_MOESM5_ESM.docm (16 kb)
ESM 5 (DOCM 15 kb)
10897_2015_9883_MOESM6_ESM.docm (16 kb)
ESM 6 (DOCM 15 kb)
10897_2015_9883_MOESM7_ESM.docm (16 kb)
ESM 7 (DOCM 15 kb)
10897_2015_9883_MOESM8_ESM.docm (16 kb)
ESM 8 (DOCM 15 kb)
10897_2015_9883_MOESM9_ESM.docm (16 kb)
ESM 9 (DOCM 15 kb)
10897_2015_9883_MOESM10_ESM.docm (16 kb)
ESM 10 (DOCM 15 kb)

References

  1. Alliance, G. (2010). Trust it or trash it? A tool to help evaluate and create genetics health information. Retrieved October 1, 2014, from https://doi.org/www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK115530/.
  2. Bates, B. R. (2005). Public culture and public understanding of genetics: a focus group study. Public Understanding of Science, 14(1), 47–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brechman, J. M., Lee, C., & Cappella, J. N. (2011). Distorting genetic research about cancer: from bench science to press release to published news. Journal of Communication, 61, 496–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Calsbeek, H., Morren, M., Bensing, J., & Rijken, M. (2007). Knowledge and attitudes towards genetic testing: a 2 years follow-up study in patients with asthma, diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular disease. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 16(4), 493–504. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-006-9085-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Catz, D. S., Green, N. S., Tobin, J. N., Lloyd-Puryear, M. A., Kyler, P., Umemoto, A., & Wolman, F. (2005). Attitudes about genetics in underserved, culturally diverse populations. Community Genetics, 8(3), 161–172. doi: https://doi.org/10.1159/000086759.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Center, P. R. (2002). Vital decisions: a pew internet health report. Retrieved October 1, 2014, from https://doi.org/www.pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2002/PIP_Vital_Decisions_May2002.pdf.pdf.
  7. Christensen, K. D., Jayaratne, T. E., Roberts, J. S., Kardia, S. L., & Petty, E. M. (2010). Understandings of basic genetics in the United States: results from a national survey of black and white men and women. Public Health Genomics, 13(7–8), 467–476. doi: https://doi.org/10.1159/000293287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Christianson, C. A., Powell, K. P., Hahn, S. E., Bartz, D., Roxbury, T., Blanton, S. H., & Genomedical, C. (2010). Findings from a community education needs assessment to facilitate the integration of genomic medicine into primary care. Genetics in Medicine, 12(9), 587–593. doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/GIM.0b013e3181ed3f97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Condit, C. M. (2010). Public understandings of genetics and health. Clinical Genetics, 77(1), 1–9. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-0004.2009.01316.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dougherty, M. J., Pleasants, C., Solow, L., Wong, A., & Zhang, H. (2011). A comprehensive analysis of high school genetics standards: are states keeping pace with modern genetics? CBE Life Sciences Education, 10(3), 318–327. doi: https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.10-09-0122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dougherty, M. J., Lontok, K. S., Donigan, K., & McInerney, J. D. (2014). The critical challenge of educating the public about genetics. Current Genetic Medicine Reports, 2(2), 48–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fitzgerald-Butt, S. M., Klima, J., Kelleher, K., Chisolm, D., & McBride, K. L. (2014). Genetic knowledge and attitudes of parents of children with congenital heart defects. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/ajmg.a.36763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fox, S., and Duggan, M. (2013). Pew Research Center. Retrieved October 1, 2014, from https://doi.org/www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2013/Health-online.aspx.
  14. Genetics., N.-N. C. f. H. P. E. i. (2007). Core competencies for all health professionals. Retrieved October 1, 2014, from https://doi.org/www.nchpeg.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=237&Itemid=84.
  15. Green, E. D., Guyer, M. S., & National Human Genome Research, I. (2011). Charting a course for genomic medicine from base pairs to bedside. Nature, 470(7333), 204–213. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Haga, S. B., Barry, W. T., Mills, R., Ginsburg, G. S., Svetkey, L., Sullivan, J., & Willard, H. F. (2013). Public knowledge of and attitudes toward genetics and genetic testing. Genetic Testing and Molecular Biomarkers, 17(4), 327–335. doi: https://doi.org/10.1089/gtmb.2012.0350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Henneman, L., Timmermans, D. R., & van der Wal, G. (2004). Public experiences, knowledge and expectations about medical genetics and the use of genetic information. Community Genetics, 7(1), 33–43. doi: https://doi.org/10.1159/000080302.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Hott, A. M., Huether, C. A., McInerney, J. D., Christianson, C. A., Fowler, R., Bender, H., et al. (2002). Genetics content in introductory biology courses for non-science majors: theory and practice. Bioscience, 52, 1024–1035.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Human Genetics, C. (2001). Human genetics commission launches consultation on the future of genetic information. Human Reproduction and Genetic Ethics, 7(2), 25–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hurle, B., Citrin, T., Jenkins, J. F., Kaphingst, K. A., Lamb, N., Roseman, J. E., & Bonham, V. L. (2013). What does it mean to be genomically literate? National human genome research institute meeting report. Genetics in Medicine, 15(8), 658–663. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/gim.2013.14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jallinoja, P., & Aro, A. R. (1999). Knowledge about genes and heredity among Finns. New Genetics and Society, 18(1), 101–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jallinoja, P., & Aro, A. R. (2000). Does knowledge make a difference? The association between knowledge about genes and attitudes toward gene tests. Journal of Health Communication, 5(1), 29–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Keller, M., Gordon, E. S., Stack, C. B., Gharani, N., Schmidlen, T. J., Mintzer, J., Pallies, J., Gerry, N., & Christman, M. F. (2010). The coriell personalized medicine collaborative: a prospective study of the utility of personalized medicine. Personalized Medicine, 7, 301–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kessler, L., Collier, A., & Halbert, C. H. (2007). Knowledge about genetics among African Americans. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 16(2), 191–200. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-006-9054-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lanie, A. D., Jayaratne, T. E., Sheldon, J. P., Kardia, S. L., Anderson, E. S., Feldbaum, M., & Petty, E. M. (2004). Exploring the public understanding of basic genetic concepts. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 13(4), 305–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McInerney, J. (2002). Education in a genomic world. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 27(3), 369–390. doi: https://doi.org/10.1076/jmep.27.3.369.2977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. McInerney, J., Edelman, E., Nissen, T., Reed, E., & Scott, J. (2012). Perspectives: preparing health professionals for individualized medicine. Personalized Medicine, 9, 529–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Molster, C., Charles, T., Samanek, A., & O’Leary, P. (2009). Australian study on public knowledge of human genetics and health. Public Health Genomics, 12(2), 84–91. doi: https://doi.org/10.1159/000164684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ratzan, S., and Parker, R. (2000). Introduction. In: National library of medicine current bibliographies in medicine: health literacy. NLM Pub. No. CBM 2000–1. In Selden CR, Zorn M, Ratzan SC, Parker RM (eds), Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.Google Scholar
  30. Roberts, J. S., Dolinoy, D. C., & Tarini, B. A. (2014). Emerging issues in public health genomics. Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics, 15, 461–480. doi: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-genom-090413-025514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Scheuner, M. T., Sieverding, P., & Shekelle, P. G. (2008). Delivery of genomic medicine for common chronic adult diseases: a systematic review. JAMA, 299(11), 1320–1334. doi: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.299.11.1320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Schmidlen, T. J., Wawak, L., Kasper, R., Garcia-Espana, J. F., Christman, M. F., & Gordon, E. S. (2014). Personalized genomic results: analysis of informational needs. Journal of Genetic Counseling. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-014-9693-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Stack, C. B., Gharani, N., Gordon, E. S., Schmidlen, T., Christman, M. F., & Keller, M. A. (2011). Genetic risk estimation in the coriell personalized medicine collaborative. Genetics in Medicine, 13(2), 131–139. doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/GIM.0b013e318201164c.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Team, R. C. (2013). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from https://doi.org/www.R-project.org/.
  35. Walter, F. M., Emery, J., Braithwaite, D., & Marteau, T. M. (2004). Lay understanding of familial risk of common chronic diseases: a systematic review and synthesis of qualitative research. Annals of Family Medicine, 2(6), 583–594. doi: https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wathen, C. N., & Burkell, J. (2002). Believe it or not: factors influencing credibility on the web. Journal of the American Society of Information Science and Technology, 53, 134–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© National Society of Genetic Counselors, Inc. 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tara J. Schmidlen
    • 1
    Email author
  • Laura Scheinfeldt
    • 1
  • Ruixue Zhaoyang
    • 1
  • Rachel Kasper
    • 1
  • Kevin Sweet
    • 2
  • Erynn S. Gordon
    • 3
  • Margaret Keller
    • 4
  • Cathy Stack
    • 5
  • Neda Gharani
    • 1
  • Mary B. Daly
    • 6
  • Joseph Jarvis
    • 1
  • Michael F. Christman
    • 1
  1. 1.Coriell Institute for Medical ResearchCamdenUSA
  2. 2.Ohio State UniversityColumbusUSA
  3. 3.23andMeMountain ViewUSA
  4. 4.American Red CrossPhiladelphiaUSA
  5. 5.Annals of Internal MedicinePhiladelphiaUSA
  6. 6.Temple HealthFox Chase Cancer CenterPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations