The Impact of Information Order on Intentions to Undergo Predictive Genetic Testing

Abstract

As predictive genetic testing availability increases so does our need to understand factors associated with test uptake. This study tests whether the order positive and negative information about genetic testing for breast cancer is presented in affects intention to take a genetic test. Eighty-four women were randomly allocated into three groups: (1) positive then negative information; (2) negative then positive information; and (3) a control group. A significant effect was found in relation to perceived risk, attitudes towards genetic testing, perceived disadvantages of testing and intention. Our findings point to a primacy effect, whereby information presented first has the greatest effect.

Factors influencing intention to undergo whole genome screening in future healthcare: A single-blind parallel-group randomised trial

“…Threat appraisals may not have predicted intention because the present study used a mostly young adult sample, whose appraisals of disease severity and vulnerability may have been limited by the distal nature of disease risks revealed by WGS screening. This seems unlikely given that other studies (e.g., Morrison et al, 2010) involving young, healthy adult samples found an association between perceived personal risk and intention to undergo genetic testing for a future-onset disease. A more likely explanation comes from Sweeny and Legg (2011), who assert that threat beliefs pertain to specific disease outcomes, and thus do not make sense when screening provides feedback on multiple disease outcomes, as with WGS screening.…”

“…Secondly, participant attitudes and intention were assessed immediately after viewing the information manipulation, with no longer term follow up. Although this design limitation is common in experimental studies (e.g., Morrison et al, 2010), it prevents conclusions about the stability of screeningrelated cognitions and intention over time. Finally, screening intention may not translate into actual uptake.…”

“…-Vulnerability: Five items assessed perceived susceptibility to diseases (e.g., neurodegenerative). -Response efficacy: 14 items (adapted from Morrison et al, 2010), assessed perceived WGS screening benefits and efficacy (e.g., reduce worry). -Self-efficacy: Eight items, informed by literature (e.g., Clarke and Thirlaway, 2011) assessed confidence in undertaking WGS screening despite 'obstacles' (e.g., family opposes).…”

“…The PMT measures were developed by the authors (AF and IJ) using past research on genetic testing attitudes in a similar study population (e.g., Morrison et al, 2010). Items were rated on seven point Likert type scales, from: very unlikely (1) to very likely (7) (protection motivation); very low (1) to very high (7) (vulnerability); and strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7) (others).…”

“…-Self-efficacy: Eight items, informed by literature (e.g., Clarke and Thirlaway, 2011) assessed confidence in undertaking WGS screening despite 'obstacles' (e.g., family opposes). -Response costs: 15 items (adapted from Morrison et al, 2010), assessed perceived barriers to WGS screening (e.g., jeopardise privacy).…”