4.1 Article

It's Not Like Judgment Day: Public Understanding of and Reactions to Personalized Genomic Risk Information

期刊

JOURNAL OF GENETIC COUNSELING
卷 21, 期 3, 页码 423-432

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1007/s10897-011-9476-4

关键词

Personalized medicine; Genomic risk; Qualitative research; Public understanding; Genetic testing, direct-to-consumer genetic testing; Risk assessment; Behavioral change

资金

  1. National Human Genome Research Institute, National Institutes of Health [1RC1HG005369-01, 1-P50HG004487-01]
  2. William G. Rohrer Foundation
  3. RNR Foundation
  4. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The value of genomic risk assessment depends upon patients making appropriate behavioral changes in response to increased risk leading to disease prevention and early detection. To date, few studies have investigated consumers' response to personalized genomic disease risk information. To address this gap, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 60 adults participating in the Coriell Personalized Medicine Collaborative. The interviews took place after receiving results providing genomic and other risk information for up to eight common complex diseases. We found that participants were most likely to recall results which conferred an increased risk or those of particular personal interest. Participants understood the multi-factorial nature of common complex disease, and generally did not have negative emotional responses or overly deterministic perceptions of their results. Although most participants expressed a desire to use results to improve their health, a minority had actually taken action (behavior change or shared results with their doctor) at the time of the interview. These results suggest that participants have a reasonable understanding of genomic risk information and that provision of genomic risk information may motivate behavior change in some individuals; however additional work is needed to better understand the lack of change seen in the majority of participants.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据