Factors Influencing Uptake of Genetic Testing For Colorectal Cancer Risk in an Australian Jewish Population

Warner, B.; Curnow, Lisette; Polglase, A. L.; Debinski, Henry

doi:10.1007/s10897-005-1623-3

Cited by 19 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Similarly, men with a family history of HBOC underwent testing primarily for their children (d'Agincourt-Canning, 2006;Hallowell et al 2005). Responsibility to other relatives also prompted interest and test uptake for inherited colon cancer (Ramsey et al 2003;Warner et al 2006) and Huntington disease (HD; Etchegary, 2006;Taylor, 2004).…”

Section: Genetic Responsibilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Decision‐Making About Inherited Cancer Risk: Exploring Dimensions of Genetic Responsibility

Etchegary

Miller

Laat

et al. 2009

Journal of Genetic Counseling

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since genetic information has implications for family members, some choices about genetic risk may be influenced by perceptions of responsibility to relatives. Drawing upon 25 semi-structured interviews with test recipients in Canada, this study explored decisions about inherited breast-ovarian and colon cancer. Qualitative data analysis revealed the pervasive significance of genetic responsibility in test decisions. We highlight three dimensions of genetic responsibility: 1) to know about the self for self; 2) to know about the self for others; 3) to know about the self to oblige others to know. It is argued that these dimensions of genetic responsibility have implications for test decisions, family relationships and other family members' desire to know (or not know) and to act (or not act) with respect to their own genetic risk. In particular, genetic responsibility may play out as a framing of a relative's moral obligation to know their risk that could obviate any interest they might have in not knowing. We conclude that perceptions of responsibility to-and of-other family members be thoroughly explored in genetic counseling sessions.

show abstract

Section: Genetic Responsibilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Decision‐Making About Inherited Cancer Risk: Exploring Dimensions of Genetic Responsibility

Etchegary

Miller

Laat

et al. 2009

Journal of Genetic Counseling

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Despite accelerating advances in genomic technology and individualized disease prevention, uptake rates for genetic testing still lag [Hadley et al, 2003; Hayden and Bombard, 2005; Meiser et al, 2006] There are numerous reasons that may account for this including, high costs, uncertain clinical utility, limited health care capacity, and lack of evidence for benefit. One reason that has been the focus of considerable attention is the concern for the possibility of genetic discrimination [Kinney et al, 2001; Hadley et al, 2003; Warner et al, 2005; Lewis and Peterson, 2007; Robson et al, 2010]. Genetic discrimination (GD) refers to the differential treatment of asymptomatic individuals or their family members based on real or presumed genotype [Billings et al, 1992].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Beyond the patient: The broader impact of genetic discrimination among individuals at risk of Huntington disease

Bombard¹,

Palin²,

Friedman³

et al. 2012

American J of Med Genetics Pt B

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We aimed to address gaps in current understanding of the scope and impact of discrimination, by examining a cohort of individuals at-risk for Huntington disease (HD), to describe the prevalence of concern for oneself and one's family in multiple domains; strategies used to mitigate discrimination; and the extent to which concerns relate to experiences. We conducted a cross-sectional survey of 293 individuals at-risk for HD (80% response rate); 167 respondents were genetically tested and 66 were not. Fear of discrimination was widespread (86%), particularly in the insurance, family and social settings. Approximately half of concerned individuals experienced discrimination (40-62%, depending on genetic status). Concern was associated with "keeping quiet" about one's risk of HD or "taking action to avoid" discrimination. Importantly, concern was highly distressing for some respondents (21% for oneself; 32% for relatives). Overall, concerned respondents with high education levels, who discovered their family history at a younger age, and those who were mutation-positive were more likely to report experiences of discrimination than others who were concerned. Concerns were rarely attributed to genetic test results alone. Concern about genetic discrimination is frequent among individuals at-risk of HD and spans many settings. It influences behavioral patterns and can result in high levels of self-rated distress, highlighting the need for practice and policy interventions. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

show abstract

“…Physician recommendation is an important predictor of who pursues BRCA1/2 genetic counseling and testing (Barnoy et al 2010;Hall and Olopade 2005;Schwartz et al 2005;Warner et al 2005) and involvement of genetics professionals like genetic counselors leads to more informed decisions about testing (Keating et al 2008) and risk management (Samphao et al 2009). African American women at high risk for carrying a BRCA1/2 mutation are less likely to pursue counseling and testing and thus we sought to explore health professionals' opinions related to the genetic counseling and testing process for this population.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Providers’ Perceptions and Practices Regarding BRCA1/2 Genetic Counseling and Testing in African American Women

Graves¹,

Christopher²,

Harrison³

et al. 2011

Journal of Genetic Counseling

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We examined healthcare providers’ perceptions of genetic counseling and testing in African American women (AAW) at moderate to high-risk of carrying a BRCA1/2 mutation. We conducted 20 in-depth interviews with genetic counselors (n=5), medical oncologists (n=8), obstetrician/gynecologists (n=2) and surgeons (n=5). Interviews were audiotaped, transcribed and independently coded by two coders using a content analysis approach. Seven themes emerged relevant to providers’ perceptions of AAW’s use of BRCA1/2 genetic services: access factors, cultural beliefs and preferences, effects of testing, patient motivators for genetic counseling and testing, patient-provider communication, reasons for provider referral, and reasons for patient refusal. Providers identified individual- and system-level barriers to AAW’s use of genetic services, including lack of follow-up after referrals to genetic specialists and challenges to obtaining financial coverage for under- and uninsured high-risk women. Results have implications for physician and patient education regarding appropriate referrals to and uptake of genetic services in at-risk AAW.

show abstract

Factors Influencing Uptake of Genetic Testing For Colorectal Cancer Risk in an Australian Jewish Population

Cited by 19 publications

References 25 publications

Decision‐Making About Inherited Cancer Risk: Exploring Dimensions of Genetic Responsibility

Decision‐Making About Inherited Cancer Risk: Exploring Dimensions of Genetic Responsibility

Beyond the patient: The broader impact of genetic discrimination among individuals at risk of Huntington disease

Providers’ Perceptions and Practices Regarding BRCA1/2 Genetic Counseling and Testing in African American Women

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About