European journal of cancer (Oxford, England : 1990) · 2012
Perceptions of genetic research and testing among members of families with an increased risk of malignant melanoma.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Bränström Richard, Kasparian Nadine A, Affleck Paul, Tibben Aad, Chang Yu-mei, Azizi Esther, Baron-Epel Orna, Bergman Wilma, Chan May, Davies John, Ingvar Christian, Kanetsky Peter A, van Leeuwen Evert, Olsson Håkan, Gruis Nelleke A, Brandberg Yvonne, Newton-Bishop Julia
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Several melanoma susceptibility genes have been identified. As part of the international genetic research programme of the GenoMEL consortiums research on genetic mutations in melanoma families, the aim of this study was to examine family members' views about their risk of melanoma, gene testing and genetic research.
METHODS: Self-report data were gathered using online and paper-based surveys available in four languages among 312 individuals (62% from Europe, 18% from Australia, 13% from the United States of America (USA) and 7% from Israel).
RESULTS: Fifty three percent had been diagnosed with a melanoma, and 12% had a positive susceptibility gene test result. Respondents with many moles and freckles were more likely to perceive themselves at risk for developing melanoma (odds ratio [OR](Freckles)=2.24 with 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.18-4.26; OR(Many moles)=6.92, 95%CI=2.37-20.23). Respondents who had received a non-informative (negative) genetic test result were much less likely to perceive themselves at increased risk (OR=0.17, 95% CI=0.04-0.73). Safe-guards were perceived as important to protect genetic information, but there was also support for the storage and exchange of such information. Overall, respondents were in favour of genetic testing, even if current knowledge about melanoma risk genes is still limited. Contrary to previous studies, participants reported that a non-informative (negative) genetic test result, although not necessarily indicative of lower risk of melanoma, would be likely to reduce their practise of preventive behaviours.
CONCLUSIONS: Participants were influenced by their phenotype and test results in risk estimations. They expressed positive views on genetic research and towards genetic testing, but reported that a non-informative (negative) test result might be associated with an (erroneous) perception of reduced risk and fewer preventive behaviours. These results highlight the urgency of improving the quality of genetic counselling and increasing the effectiveness of communication regarding genetic test results.
METHODS: Self-report data were gathered using online and paper-based surveys available in four languages among 312 individuals (62% from Europe, 18% from Australia, 13% from the United States of America (USA) and 7% from Israel).
RESULTS: Fifty three percent had been diagnosed with a melanoma, and 12% had a positive susceptibility gene test result. Respondents with many moles and freckles were more likely to perceive themselves at risk for developing melanoma (odds ratio [OR](Freckles)=2.24 with 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.18-4.26; OR(Many moles)=6.92, 95%CI=2.37-20.23). Respondents who had received a non-informative (negative) genetic test result were much less likely to perceive themselves at increased risk (OR=0.17, 95% CI=0.04-0.73). Safe-guards were perceived as important to protect genetic information, but there was also support for the storage and exchange of such information. Overall, respondents were in favour of genetic testing, even if current knowledge about melanoma risk genes is still limited. Contrary to previous studies, participants reported that a non-informative (negative) genetic test result, although not necessarily indicative of lower risk of melanoma, would be likely to reduce their practise of preventive behaviours.
CONCLUSIONS: Participants were influenced by their phenotype and test results in risk estimations. They expressed positive views on genetic research and towards genetic testing, but reported that a non-informative (negative) test result might be associated with an (erroneous) perception of reduced risk and fewer preventive behaviours. These results highlight the urgency of improving the quality of genetic counselling and increasing the effectiveness of communication regarding genetic test results.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
AdultAgedAged, 80 and overAustraliaChi-Square DistributionEuropeFamilyFemaleGenetic CounselingGenetic Predisposition to DiseaseGenetic PrivacyGenetic ResearchGenetic TestingHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansInformation DisseminationIsraelLogistic ModelsMaleMelanomaMiddle AgedMultivariate AnalysisMutationOdds RatioPedigreePerceptionPhenotypeRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsSkin NeoplasmsSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited StatesYoung Adult