Article

Changes to perceptions of the pros and cons of genetic susceptibility testing after APOE genotyping for Alzheimer disease risk

Department of Health Behavior and Health Education, University of Michigan School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-2029, USA.
Genetics in medicine: official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics (Impact Factor: 6.44). 01/2011; 13(5):409-14. DOI: 10.1097/GIM.0b013e3182076bf1
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Perceptions about the pros and cons of genetic susceptibility testing are among the best predictors of test utilization. How actual testing changes such perceptions has yet to be examined.
In a clinical trial, first-degree relatives of patients with Alzheimer disease received genetic risk assessments for Alzheimer disease including APOE disclosure. Participants rated 11 possible benefits associated with genetic testing (pros) and 10 risks or limitations (cons) before genetic risk disclosure and again 12 months afterward.
Pros were rated higher than cons at baseline (3.53 vs. 1.83, P < 0.001) and at 12 months after risk disclosure (3.33 vs. 1.88, P < 0.001). Ratings of pros decreased during the 12-month period (3.33 vs. 3.53, P < 0.001). Ratings of cons did not change (1.88 vs. 1.83, P = 0.199) except for a three-item discrimination subscale which increased (2.07 vs. 1.92, P = 0.012). Among specific pros and cons, three items related to prevention and treatment changed the most.
The process of APOE genetic risk assessment for Alzheimer disease sensitizes some to its limitations and the risks of discrimination; however, 1-year after disclosure, test recipients still consider the pros to strongly outweigh the cons.

Full-text

Available from: J. Scott Roberts, Jun 09, 2015
0 Followers
 · 
133 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Many variants that could be returned from genome sequencing may be perceived as ambiguous-lacking reliability, credibility, or adequacy. Little is known about how perceived ambiguity influences thoughts about sequencing results. Participants (n = 494) in an NIH genome sequencing study completed a baseline survey before sequencing results were available. We examined how perceived ambiguity regarding sequencing results and individual differences in medical ambiguity aversion and tolerance for uncertainty were associated with cognitions and intentions concerning sequencing results. Perceiving sequencing results as more ambiguous was associated with less favorable cognitions about results and lower intentions to learn and share results. Among participants low in tolerance for uncertainty or optimism, greater perceived ambiguity was associated with lower intentions to learn results for non-medically actionable diseases; medical ambiguity aversion did not moderate any associations. Results are consistent with the phenomenon of "ambiguity aversion" and may influence whether people learn and communicate genomic information.
    Journal of Behavioral Medicine 05/2015; DOI:10.1007/s10865-015-9642-5 · 3.10 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Studies examining whether genetic risk information about common, complex diseases can motivate individuals to improve health behaviors and advance planning have shown mixed results. Examining the influence of different study recruitment strategies may help reconcile inconsistencies. Secondary analyses were conducted on data from the REVEAL study, a series of randomized clinical trials examining the impact of genetic susceptibility testing for Alzheimer's disease (AD). We tested whether self-referred participants (SRPs) were more likely than actively recruited participants (ARPs) to report health behavior and advance planning changes after AD risk and APOE genotype disclosure. Of 795 participants with known recruitment status, 546 (69%) were self-referred and 249 (31%) had been actively recruited. SRPs were younger, less likely to identify as African American, had higher household incomes, and were more attentive to AD than ARPs (all P < 0.01). They also dropped out of the study before genetic risk disclosure less frequently (26% versus 41%, P < 0.001). Cohorts did not differ in their likelihood of reporting a change to at least one health behavior 6 weeks and 12 months after genetic risk disclosure, nor in intentions to change at least one behavior in the future. However, interaction effects were observed where ε4-positive SRPs were more likely than ε4-negative SRPs to report changes specifically to mental activities (38% vs 19%, p < 0.001) and diets (21% vs 12%, p = 0.016) six weeks post-disclosure, whereas differences between ε4-positive and ε4-negative ARPs were not evident for mental activities (15% vs 21%, p = 0.413) or diets (8% versus 16%, P = 0.190). Similarly, ε4-positive participants were more likely than ε4-negative participants to report intentions to change long-term care insurance among SRPs (20% vs 5%, p < 0.001), but not ARPs (5% versus 9%, P = 0.365). Individuals who proactively seek AD genetic risk assessment are more likely to undergo testing and use results to inform behavior changes than those who respond to genetic testing offers. These results demonstrate how the behavioral impact of genetic risk information may vary according to the models by which services are provided, and suggest that how participants are recruited into translational genomics research can influence findings. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00089882 and NCT00462917.
    Genome Medicine 01/2015; 7(1):10. DOI:10.1186/s13073-014-0124-0 · 4.94 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Type 2 diabetes (T2D) and coronary heart disease (CHD) are prevalent chronic diseases from which military personnel are not exempt. While many genetic markers for these diseases have been identified, the clinical utility of genetic risk testing for multifactorial diseases such as these has not been established. The need for a behavioral intervention such as health coaching following a risk counseling intervention for T2D or CHD also has not been explored. Here we present the rationale, design, and protocol for evaluating the clinical utility of genetic risk testing and health coaching for active duty US Air Force (AF) retirees and beneficiaries. Determine the direct and interactive effects of health coaching and providing genetic risk information when added to standard risk counseling for CHD and T2D on health behaviors and clinical risk markers. Four-group (2 X 2 factorial) randomized controlled trial. Two AF primary care clinical settings on the west coast of the United States. Adult AF primary care patients. All participants will have a risk counseling visit with a clinic provider to discuss personal risk factors for T2D and CHD. Half of the participants (two groups) will also learn of their genetic risk testing results for T2D and CHD in this risk counseling session. Participants randomized to the two groups receiving health coaching will then receive telephonic health coaching over 6 months. Behavioral measures (self-reported dietary intake, physical activity, smoking cessation, medication adherence); clinical outcomes (AF composite fitness scores, weight, waist circumference, blood pressure, fasting glucose, lipids, T2D/CHD risk scores) and psychosocial measures (self-efficacy, worry, perceived risk) will be collected at baseline and 6 weeks, and 3, 6, and 12 months. This study tests novel strategies deployed within existing AF primary care to increase adherence to evidence-based diet, physical activity, smoking cessation, and medication recommendations for CHD and T2D risk reduction through methods of patient engagement and self-management support.
    05/2013; 2(3):26-38. DOI:10.7453/gahmj.2013.035