The Diabetes educator · 2014
Genetic Testing and Type 2 Diabetes Risk Awareness.
СтатьяПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
de Groot Mary, Wessel Jennifer
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to examine the motivational, attitudinal, and behavioral predictors of interest in genetic testing (GT) in those with and without awareness of their risk for type 2 diabetes (T2DM).
METHODS: A convenience sample of adults visiting emergency departments, libraries, or an online research registry was surveyed. Responses from adults without diabetes who reported 1 or more risk factors for T2DM (eg, family history, body mass index > 25) were included in the analyses (n = 265).
RESULTS: Participants were 37 ± 11 years old, white (54%), and female (69%), with some college education (53%) and an annual income below $25 000 (44%). Approximately half (52%) expressed interest in GT for T2DM. Individuals were stratified by perceived risk for T2DM (risk aware or risk unaware). Among the risk aware, younger age (P < .04) predicted greater interest in GT. Among the risk unaware, family history of T2DM (P < .008) and preference to know genetic risk (P < .0002) predicted interest in GT. Both groups identified the need for low-cost GT.
CONCLUSIONS: GT is an increasingly available and accurate tool to predict T2DM risk for patients. In this sample, GT was a salient tool for those with and without awareness of their T2DM risk. Financial accessibility is critical to use of this tool for both groups.
METHODS: A convenience sample of adults visiting emergency departments, libraries, or an online research registry was surveyed. Responses from adults without diabetes who reported 1 or more risk factors for T2DM (eg, family history, body mass index > 25) were included in the analyses (n = 265).
RESULTS: Participants were 37 ± 11 years old, white (54%), and female (69%), with some college education (53%) and an annual income below $25 000 (44%). Approximately half (52%) expressed interest in GT for T2DM. Individuals were stratified by perceived risk for T2DM (risk aware or risk unaware). Among the risk aware, younger age (P < .04) predicted greater interest in GT. Among the risk unaware, family history of T2DM (P < .008) and preference to know genetic risk (P < .0002) predicted interest in GT. Both groups identified the need for low-cost GT.
CONCLUSIONS: GT is an increasingly available and accurate tool to predict T2DM risk for patients. In this sample, GT was a salient tool for those with and without awareness of their T2DM risk. Financial accessibility is critical to use of this tool for both groups.