4.6 Article

I know what you told me, but this is what I think: Perceived risk of Alzheimer disease among individuals who accurately recall their genetics-based risk estimate

期刊

GENETICS IN MEDICINE
卷 12, 期 4, 页码 219-227

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1097/GIM.0b013e3181cef9e1

关键词

risk recall; risk perception; Alzheimer disease; genetic susceptibility testing

资金

  1. NIH [RO1-HG/AG02213, P50-AG13846, K24-AG027841, RO1-AG09029, M01-RR00533]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: This study evaluates the Alzheimer disease risk perceptions of individuals who accurately recall their genetics-based Alzheimer disease risk assessment. Methods: Two hundred forty-six unaffected first-degree relatives of patients with Alzheimer disease were enrolled in a multisite randomized controlled trial examining the effects of communicating APOE genotype and lifetime Alzheimer disease risk information. Results: Among the 158 participants who accurately recalled their Alzheimer disease risk assessment 6 weeks after risk disclosure, 75 (47.5%) believed their Alzheimer disease risk was more than 5% points different from the Alzheimer disease risk estimate they were given. Within this subgroup, 69.3% believed that their Alzheimer disease risk was higher than what they were told (discordant high), whereas 30.7% believed that their Alzheimer disease risk was lower (discordant low). Participants with a higher baseline risk perception were more likely to have a discordant-high risk perception (P < 0.05). Participants in the discordant-low group were more likely to be APOE epsilon 4 positive (P < 0.05) and to score higher on an Alzheimer disease controllability scale (P < 0.05). Conclusion: Our results indicate that even among individuals who accurately recall their Alzheimer disease risk assessment, many people do not take communicated risk estimates at face value. Further exploration of this clinically relevant response to risk information is warranted. Genet Med 2010: 12(4): 219-227.

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

4.6
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