How Can Psychological Science Inform Research About Genetic Counseling for Clinical Genomic Sequencing?
- 1.1k Downloads
Next generation genomic sequencing technologies (including whole genome or whole exome sequencing) are being increasingly applied to clinical care. Yet, the breadth and complexity of sequencing information raise questions about how best to communicate and return sequencing information to patients and families in ways that facilitate comprehension and optimal health decisions. Obtaining answers to such questions will require multidisciplinary research. In this paper, we focus on how psychological science research can address questions related to clinical genomic sequencing by explaining emotional, cognitive, and behavioral processes in response to different types of genomic sequencing information (e.g., diagnostic results and incidental findings). We highlight examples of psychological science that can be applied to genetic counseling research to inform the following questions: (1) What factors influence patients’ and providers’ informational needs for developing an accurate understanding of what genomic sequencing results do and do not mean?; (2) How and by whom should genomic sequencing results be communicated to patients and their family members?; and (3) How do patients and their families respond to uncertainties related to genomic information?
KeywordsCommunication Genome sequencing Patient understanding Psychological Psychosocial
Conflict of Interest
All of the authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman and Company.Google Scholar
- Barrett Feldman, L., Mesquita, B., Ochsner, K. N., Gross, J. J. The experience of emotion. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 373–403.Google Scholar
- Biesecker, B. B., Klein, W., Lewis, K. L., Fisher, T. C., Wright, M. F., Biesecker, L. G. et al. (2014). Brief report: how do research participants perceive “uncertainty” in genome sequencing? Genetics in Medicine. Accessed June 15, 2014 from http://www.nature.com/gim/journal/vaop/ncurrent/index.html#29052014.
- Case, D. O., Andrews, J. E., Johnson, J. D., & Allard, S. L. (2005). Avoiding versus seeking: the relationship of information seeking to avoidance, blunting, coping, dissonance, and related concepts. Journal of Medical Library Association, 93, 353–362.Google Scholar
- Cho, M. K. (2008). Understanding incidental findings in the context of genetics and genomics. Journal of Law and Medical Ethics, 36, 280–285.Google Scholar
- Dancyger, C., Smith, J. A., Jacobs, C., Wallace, M., & Michie, S. (2010). Comparing family members’ motivations and attitudes towards genetic testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer: a qualitative analysis. European Journal of Human Genetics, 18, 1289–1295.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Facio, F. M., Brooks, S., Loewenstein, J., Green, S., Biesecker, L. G., & Biesecker, B. B. (2011). Motivators for participation in a whole-genome sequencing study: implications for translational genomics research. European Journal of Human Genetics, 19, 1213–1217.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Frijda, N. H. (1986). The emotions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Haga, S.B., Mills, R., & Bosworth, H. (2014). Striking a balance in communicating pharmacogenetic test results: Promoting comprehension and minimizing adverse psychological and behavioral response. Patient Education Counseling, 14. Accessed 8/19/14 from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0738399114002390#.
- King, L. A. (2008). The science of psychology: An appreciative view. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
- Kutner, M., Greenberg, E., Jin, Y., Paulsen, C., & White, S. (2006). The health literacy of America’s Adults: Results from the 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy. Accessed May 29, 2013 from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2006/2006483_1.pdf.
- Lohn, Z., Adam, S., Birch, P. H., & Friedman, J. M. (2014). Incidental findings from clinical genome-wide sequencing: a review. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 1–11.Google Scholar
- McBride, C. M., Koehly, L. M., Sanderson, S. C., & Kaphingst, K. A. (2010). The behavioral response to personalized genetic information: will genetic risk profiles motivate individuals and families to choose more healthful behaviors? Annual Review of Public Health, 31, 89–103.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- McCaffery, K. J., Holmes-Rovner, M., Smith, S. K., Rovner, D., Nutbeam, D., Clayman, M. L. et al. (2013). Addressing health literacy in patient decision aids. BMC Med informatics and Dec Making. Accessed February 27, 2014 from http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6949/13/S2/S10.
- Mickelson, K. D., Lyons, R. F., Sullivan, M. J. L., & Coyne, J. C. (2001). Yours, mine, ours: The relational context of communal coping. In B. Sarason & S. Duck (Eds.), Personal relationships: Implications for clinical and community psychology (pp. 181–200). Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Miller, F. A., Hayeems, R. Z., Bytautas, J. P., Bedard, P. L., Ernst, S., Hirte, H., et al. (2014). Testing personalized medicine: Patient and physician expectations of next-generation genomic sequencing in late-stage cancer. European Journal of Human Genetics, 22, 391–395.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Mills, R., & Haga, S. B. (2013). Genomic counseling: next generation counseling. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 1–4.Google Scholar
- Olsen, J. M., Roese, N. J., & Zanna, M. P. (1996). Expectancies. In E. T. Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 211–238). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
- Peters, J. A., Kenen, R., Hoskins, L. M., Koehly, L. M., Groubard, B., Loud, J. T., et al. (2011). Unpacking the blockers: understanding perceptions and social constraints of health communication in hereditary breast ovarian (HBOC) susceptibility families. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 20, 450–464.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Petty, R. E., & Wegener, D. T. (1999). The elaboration likelihood model: Current status and controversies. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 41–72). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
- Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues: Privacy and progress in whole genome sequencing (October 2012). Accessed December 19, 2013 from http://bioethics.gov/node/764.
- Prince, A. R. & Roche, M. I. (2014). Genetic information, non-discrimination, and privacy protections in genetic counseling practice. Journal of Genetic Counseling. Accessed November 13, 2014 from http://link.springer.com/article/ 10.1007/s10897-014-9743-2/fulltext.html.
- Thackeray, R., Crookston, B. T., & West, J. H. (2013). Correlates of health-related social media use among adults. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 15, e21. Accessed October 21, 2014 from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.libproxy.lib.unc.edu/pmc/articles/PMC3636287/?report=classic.
- Trevena, L. J., Zimund-Fisher, B. J., Edwards, A., Gaissmaier, W., Galesic, M., Han, P. K. J. et al. (2013). Presenting quantitative information about decision outcomes: a risk communication primer for patient decision aid developers. BMC Med informatics and Dec Making. Accessed March 7, 2014 from http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6947/13/S2/S7.
- Vos, J., Gómez-García, E., Oosterwijk, J. C., Menko, F. H., Stoel, R. D., van Asperen, C. J., et al. (2012). Opening the psychological black box in genetic counseling. The psychological impact of DNA testing is predicted by the counselee’s perception, the medical impact by the pathogenic or uninformative BRCA 1/2 result. Psycho-Oncology, 21, 29–42.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar