Advertisement

Journal of Behavioral Medicine

, Volume 38, Issue 5, pp 706–714 | Cite as

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

  • Kerry Sherman
  • Laura-Kate Shaw
  • Katrina Champion
  • Fernanda Caldeira
  • Margaret McCaskill
Article

Abstract

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 

Notes

Conflict of interest

Kerry Sherman, Laura-Kate Shaw, Katrina Champion, Fernanda Caldeira and Margaret McCaskill declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and animal rights and Informed Consent

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

References

  1. 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
  2. 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, 187–192. doi: 10.1089/gte.2006.0509 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 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: 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-003384
  4. Burt, R., & Neklason, D. W. (2005). Genetic testing for inherited colon cancer. Gastroenterology, 128, 1696–1716.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 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, 286–298. doi: 10.1007/s10865-011-9361-5 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Cameron, L. D., & Muller, C. (2009). Psychosocial aspects of genetic testing. Current Opinion in Psychiatry, 22, 218–223. doi: 10.1097/YCO.0b013e3283252d80 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 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, 307–316. doi: 10.1037/a0013947 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 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, 101–105. doi: 10.1111/j.1399-0004.2009.01291.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 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, 115–131. doi: 10.1006/obhd.1999.2868
  10. easyDNA. (2014). Genetic predisposition test. http://www.easydna.com.au/content/index.php?section_id=37
  11. Edwards, K. T., & Huang, C. J. (2014). Bridging the consumer-medical divide: How to regulate direct-to-consumer genetic testing. Hastings Center Report, 44, 17–19. doi: 10.1002/hast.310 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 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, 565–575. doi: 10.1007/s10897-013-9582-6 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Etchegary, H. (2014). Public attitudes toward genetic risk testing and its role in healthcare. Personalized Medicine, 11, 509–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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, 811–816. doi: 10.1038/ejhg.2012.18 PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 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, 1762–1767. doi: 10.1001/jama.288.14.1762 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Green, C. A., & Pope, C. R. (1999). Gender, psychosocial factors and the use of medical services: A longitudinal analysis. Social Science & Medicine, 48, 1363–1372. doi: 10.1016/S0277-9536(98)00440-7
  17. Hampel, H., & Peltomaki, P. (2000). Hereditary colorectal cancer: Risk assessment and management. Clinical Genetics, 58, 89–97. doi: 10.1034/j.1399-0004.2000.580201.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 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, 319–330. doi: 10.1080/08870440512331317689 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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, 325–332. doi: 10.1097/GIM.0b013e3182011636 PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 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/2006_DTC_Issue_Brief.pdf
  21. Kovess-Masfety, V., Boyd, A., van de Velde, S., de Graaf, R., Vilagut, G., Haro, J. M., & Alonso, J. (2014). Are there gender differences in service use for mental disorders across countries in the European Union? Results from the EU-World Mental Health survey. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 68, 649–656. doi: 10.1136/jech-2013-202962 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Lab Tests Online. (2014). Sample report. Retrieved 21st October, 2014 from http://labtestsonline.org/assets/static-pages/Sample.html
  23. McBride, C. M., Alford, S. H., Reid, R. J., Larson, E. B., Baxevanis, A. D., & Brody, L. C. (2009). Characteristics of users of online personalized genomic risk assessments: Implications for physician-patient interactions. Genetics in Medicine, 11, 582–587. doi: 10.1097/GIM.0b013e3181b22c3a PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Mireskandari, S., Meiser, B., Sherman, K., Warner, B. J., Andrews, L., & Tucker, K. M. (2006). Evaluation of the needs and concerns of partners of women at high risk of developing breast/ovarian cancer. Psycho-oncology, 15, 96–108.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. National Health and Medical Research Council. (2012). Direct-to-consumer DNA genetic testing: An information resource for consumers. Retrieved 5th November, 2014 from https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/guidelines-publications/ps4
  26. National Human Genome Research Institute. (2014). Regulation of genetic tests. http://www.genome.gov/10002335
  27. National Institutes of Health. (2013). Confused by genetic tests? NIH’s new online tool may help. Retrieved 17th October, 2014 from http://www.nih.gov/news/health/feb2012/od-29.htm
  28. Roberts, J. (2000). Anticipating response to predictive genetic testing for Alzheimer’s disease: A survey of first-degree relatives. The Gerontologist, 40, 43–52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Roberts, J. S., & Ostergren, J. (2013). Direct-to-consumer genetic testing and personal genomics services: A review of recent empirical studies. Current Genetic Medicine Reports, 1, 182–200.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Senior, V., Marteau, T. M., & Weinman, J. (2000). Impact of genetic testing on causal models of heart disease and arthritis: An analogue study. Psychology & Health, 14, 1077–1088. doi: 10.1080/08870440008407368 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Shaw, B., & Bassi, K. (2001). Lay attitudes toward genetic testing for susceptibility to inherited diseases. Journal of Health Psychology, 6, 405–423.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Shiloh, S., Ben-Sinai, R., & Keinan, G. (1999). Effects of controllability, predictability, and information-seeking style on interest in predictive genetic testing. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 1187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Su, P. (2013). Direct-to-consumer genetic testing: A comprehensive view. Yale J Biol Med, 86, 359–365.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Sweeny, K., & Legg, A. M. (2011). Predictors of interest in direct-to-consumer genetic testing. Psychology & Health, 26, 1–14. doi: 10.1080/08870446.2010.514607 Google Scholar
  35. The Cochrane Collaboration. (2010). Does communicating DNA‐based risk estimates motivate people to change their behaviour? Retrieved 3rd November, 2014 from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0014386/
  36. The Genetics and Public Policy Center. (2012). GPPC releases updated list of DTC genetic testing companies. Retrieved 28th October, 2014 from http://www.dnapolicy.org/news.release.php?action=detail&pressrelease_id=145
  37. Trent, R. (2014). Direct-to-consumer DNA testing and the general practitioner. Australian Family Physician, 43, 436–439.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Vassy, J. L., Donelan, K., Hivert, M. F., Green, R. C., & Grant, R. W. (2013). Genetic susceptibility testing for chronic disease and intention for behavior change in healthy young adults. Journal of Community Genetics, 4, 263–271.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Werner, P., Goldstein, D., & Heinik, J. (2011). Development and validity of the Family Stigma in Alzheimer’s disease Scale (FS-ADS). Alzheimer Disease and Associated Disorders, 25, 42–48. doi: 10.1097/WAD.0b013e3181f32594 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Werner, P., & Heinik, J. (2008). Stigma by association and Alzheimer’s disease. Aging Mental Health, 12, 92–99.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Wilde, A., Meiser, B., Mitchell, P. B., & Schofield, P. R. (2010). Public interest in predictive genetic testing, including direct-to-consumer testing, for susceptibility to major depression: Preliminary findings. European Journal of Human Genetics, 18, 47–51. doi: 10.1038/ejhg.2009.138 PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Wolff, K., Nordin, K., Brun, W., Berglund, G., & Kvale, G. (2011). Affective and cognitive attitudes, uncertainty avoidance and intention to obtain genetic testing: An extension of the theory of planned behaviour. Psychology & Health, 26, 1–13. doi: 10.1080/08870441003763253 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kerry Sherman
    • 1
    • 2
  • Laura-Kate Shaw
    • 3
  • Katrina Champion
    • 4
  • Fernanda Caldeira
    • 5
  • Margaret McCaskill
    • 3
  1. 1.Centre for Emotional HealthMacquarie UniversitySydneyAustralia
  2. 2.Westmead Breast Cancer InstituteWestmead HospitalSydneyAustralia
  3. 3.Department of PsychologyMacquarie UniversitySydneyAustralia
  4. 4.National Drug and Alcohol Research CentreUniversity of NSWSydneyAustralia
  5. 5.University of HeidelbergHeidelbergGermany

Personalised recommendations