Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Anticipating dissemination of cancer genomics in public health: A theoretical approach to psychosocial and behavioral challenges

  • Published:
Annals of Behavioral Medicine

Abstract

Background: Given the recent sequencing of the human genome, genetic susceptibility information will probably be increasingly useful in the prevention and control of many common diseases, including cancer.Purpose: Although much is known about psychosocial factors related to the impact of cancer genetic testing among high-risk families in specialized clinic settings, much less is known about how genetic susceptibility information may contribute to the health and wellbeing of the general population.Methods: We present a theoretical synthesis drawn from the health communication and health behavior change traditions to guide research examining psychosocial and behavioral challenges central to dissemination of cancer genomics in public health.Results: These challenges include (a) anticipating individuals’ reactions to receiving genetic information that is probabilistic and derived from multiple sources; (b) modeling the influence of public communication about genetics on the population; (c) confronting the need to disseminate cancer genomic information through public health channels; and (d) maximizing opportunities to achieve cancer risk reduction across individuals, families, and local environments. Throughout the article, we use melanoma genomics as an example of the issues requiring attention.Conclusions: We hope the model helps shape the psychosocial and behavioral research agenda concerning the impact of cancer genomics outside the high-risk clinic.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Collins FS, Green ED, Guttmacher AE, Guyer MS: A vision for the future of genomics research.Nature. 2003,422:835–847.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Lerman C, Croyle RT, Tercyak KP, Hamann H: Genetic testing: Psychological aspects and implications.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 2002,70:784–797.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Patenaude AF, Guttmacher AE, Collins FS: Genetic testing and psychology. New roles, new responsibilities.The American Psychologist. 2002,57:271–282.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. de Snoo FA, Bergman W, Gruis NA: Familial melanoma: A complex disorder leading to controversy on DNA testing.Familial Cancer. 2003,2:109–116.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Perera FP: Environment and cancer: Who are susceptible?Science. 1997,278:1068–1073.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Khoury MJ, Group CGW: From genes to public health: Applications of genetics in disease prevention.American Journal of Public Health. 1996,86:1717–1722.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Khoury MJ, Thrasher JF, Burke W, et al.: Challenges in communicating genetics: a public health approach.Genetics in Medicine. 2000,2:198–202.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Efferth T, Volm M: Pharmacogenetics for individualized cancer chemotherapy.Pharmacology & Therapeutics. 2005,107:155–176.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Gritz ER, Peterson S: Intersection of genomic information and behavioral sciences. In Hernanadez LM (ed),Implications of Genomics for Public Health: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: Institute of Medicine, The National Academies Press, 2005, 24.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Jemal A, Devesa SS, Hartge P, Tucker MA: Recent trends in cutaneous melanoma incidence among whites in the United States.Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 2001,93:678–683.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Goldstein AM, Tucker MA: A piece of the melanoma puzzle.Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 2005,97:1486–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Skinner MA, Moley JA, Dilley WG, et al.: Prophylactic thyroidectomy in multiple endocrine neoplasia type 2 A.New England Journal of Medicine. 2005,353:1105–1113.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Begg CB, Orlow I, Hummer AJ, et al.: Lifetime risk of melanoma in CDKN2A mutation carriers in a population-based sample.Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 2005,97:1507–1515.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Bishop DT, Demenais F, Goldstein AM, et al.: Geographical variation in the penetrance of CDKN2A mutations for melanoma.Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 2002,94:894–903.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Valverde P, Healy E, Sikkink S, et al.: The Asp84Glu variant of the melanocortin 1 receptor (MC1R) is associated with melanoma.Human Molecular Genetics. 1996,5:1663–1666.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Chaudru V, Laud K, Avril MF, et al.: Melanocortin-1 receptor (MC1R) gene variants and dysplastic nevi modify penetrance of CDKN2A mutations in French melanomaprone pedigrees.Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention. 2005,14:2384–2390.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Duffy DL, Box NF, Chen W, et al.: Interactive effects of MC1R and OCA2 on melanoma risk phenotypes.Human Molecular Genetics. 2004,13:447–4461.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Flanagan N, Healy E, Ray A, et al.: Pleiotropic effects of the melanocortin 1 receptor (MC1R) gene on human pigmentation.Human Molecular Genetics. 2000,9:2531–2537.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Goldstein AM, Landi MT, Tsang S, et al.: Association of MC1R variants and risk of melanoma in melanoma-prone families with CDKN2A mutations.Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention. 2005,14:2208–2212.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Kanetsky PA, Ge F, Najarian D, et al.: Assessment of polymorphic variants in the melanocortin-1 receptor gene with cutaneous pigmentation using an evolutionary approach.Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention. 2004,13:808–819.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Kennedy C, ter Huurne J, Berkhout M, et al.: Melanocortin 1 receptor (MC1R) gene variants are associated with an increased risk for cutaneous melanoma which is largely independent of skin type and hair color.The Journal of Investigative Dermatology. 2001,117:294–300.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Landi MT, Kanetsky PA, Tsang S, et al.: MC1R, ASIP, and DNA repair in sporadic and familial melanoma in a Mediterranean population.Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 2005,97:998–1007.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Matichard E, Verpillat P, Meziani R, et al.: Melanocortin 1 receptor (MC1R) gene variants may increase the risk of melanoma in France independently of clinical risk factors and UV exposure.Journal of Medical Genetics. 2004,41:e13.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Sturm RA: Skin colour and skin cancer—MC1R, the genetic link.Melanoma Research. 2002,12:405–416.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Berg AO: Clinical use of genomic information. In Hernanadez LM (ed),Implications of Genomics for Public Health: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: Institutes of Medicine, The National Academies Press, 2005, 22.

    Google Scholar 

  26. American Medical Association: Multiple genetic testing.Hastings Center Report. 1998,28:15–21.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Marteau TM, Weinman J: Self-regulation and the behavioural response to DNA risk information: A theoretical analysis and framework for future research.Social Science & Medicine. 2006,62:1360–1368.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Cameron LD, Leventhal H (eds):The Self-Regulation of Health and Illness Behavior. New York: Routledge, 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Walter FM, Emery J, Braithwaite D, Marteau TM: Lay understanding of familial risk of common chronic diseases: A systematic review and synthesis of qualitative research.Annals of Family Medicine. 2004,2:583–594.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. McAllister M.: Predictive genetic testing and beyond: A theory of engagement.Journal of Health Psychology. 2002,7:491–508.

    Google Scholar 

  31. McAllister M: Personal theories of inheritance, coping strategies, risk perception and engagement in hereditary non-polyposis colon cancer families offered genetic testing.Clinical Genetics. 2003,64:179–189.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Walter FM, Emery J: “Coming down the line”: Patients’ understanding of their family history of common chronic disease.Annals of Family Medicine. 2005,3:405–414.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Harvard Center for Cancer Prevention:Your Disease Risk. The Source on Prevention, 2005. Retrieved April 2007 from http://www.yourdiseaserisk.harvard.edu

  34. Blalock SJ, DeVellis BM, Afifi RA, Sandler RS: Risk perceptions and participation in colorectal cancer screening.Health Psychology. 1990,9:792–806.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Lipkus IM, Skinner CS, Dement J, et al.: Increasing colorectal cancer screening among individuals in the carpentry trade: Test of risk communication interventions.Preventive Medicine. 2005,40:489–501.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Weinstein ND, Atwood K, Puleo E, et al.: Colon cancer: Risk perceptions and risk communication.Journal of Health Communication. 2004,9:53–65.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Lipkus IM, Skinner CS, Green LS, et al.: Modifying attributions of colorectal cancer risk.Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention. 2004,13:560–566.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Ponder M, Lee J, Green J, Richards M: Family history and perceived vulnerability to some common diseases: A study of young people and their parents.Journal of Medical Genetics. 1996,33:485–492.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Weinstein ND: Why it won’t happen to me: perceptions of risk factors and susceptibility.Health Psychology. 1984,3:431–457.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Weinstein ND: Unrealistic optimism about susceptibility to health problems: Conclusions from a community-wide sample.Journal of Behavioral Medicine. 1987,10:481–500.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Senior V, Marteau TM, Peters TJ: Will genetic testing for predisposition for disease result in fatalism? A qualitative study of parents’ responses to neonatal screening for familial hypercholesterolaemia.Social Science Medicine. 1999,48:1857–1860.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Acheson LS, Crabtree BF: How do people interpret their family histories of diabetes, coronary disease, or cancer?Annals of Family Medicine. 2004,2:532–533.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Finnegan JR, Jr. Viswanath K: Communication theory and health behavior change: The media studies framework. In Glanz K, Rimer BK, Lewis FM (eds),Health Behavior and Health Education. Theory, Research and Practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Street RL Jr.: Communication in medical encounters: An ecological perspective. In Thompson TL, Dorsey AM, Miller KI, Parrott R (eds),Handbook of Health Communication. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2003, 63–89.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Freimuth V: Educating the public. In Hernanadez LM (ed),Implications of Genomics for Public Health: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: Institute of Medicine, The National Academies Press, 2005, 37.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Petersen A: Biofantasies: genetics and medicine in the print news media.Social Science Medicine. 2001,52:1255–1268.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Kerr A, Cunningham-Burley S, Amos A: Drawing the line: An analysis of lay people’s discussions about the new genetics.Public Understanding of Science. 1998,7:113–133.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Kerr A, Cunningham-Burley S, Amos A: The new genetics and health: Mobilizing lay expertise.Public Understanding of Science. 1998,7:41–60.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Harris T: Gene find brings hope for glaucoma sufferers.The Weekend Australian. March 1997, 44:28–29.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Ariail K, Watts C, Bowen D: Retention in a breast cancer risk information trial: Motivations of a population-based sample of women.Health Education & Behavior. 2006,33:591–603.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Durfy SJ, Bowen DJ, McTiernan A, Sporleder J, Burke W: Attitudes and interest in genetic testing for breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility in diverse groups of women in western Washington.Cancer Epidemiology. Biomarkers & Prevention. 1999,8:369–375.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Burke W, Culver JO, Bowen D, et al.: Genetic counseling for women with an intermediate family history of breast cancer.American Journal of Medical Genetics. 2000,90:361–368.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Bowen DJ, Burke W, Yasui Y, McTiernan A, McLeran D: Effects of risk counseling on interest in breast cancer genetic testing for lower risk women.Genetics in Medicine. 2002,4:359–365.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Mesters I, Ausems M, Eichhorn S, Vasen H: Informing one’s family about genetic testing for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC): A retrospective exploratory study.Familial Cancer. 2005,4:163–167.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Bowen DJ, Battuello KM, Raats M: Marketing genetic tests: Empowerment or snake oil?Health Education & Behavior. 2005,32:676–685.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Myriad: Myriad genetics to launch melaris—A predictive medicine test for melanoma (press release). Salt Lake City, UT: September 27, 2001. Retrieved April 28, 2006 from http://www.myriad.com/news/release/273644

  57. Kefford R, Bishop JN, Tucker M, et al.: Genetic testing for melanoma.The Lancet Oncology. 2002,3:653–654.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Vadaparampil ST, Wideroff L, Olson L, Viswanath K, Freedman AN: Physician exposure to and attitudes toward advertisements for genetic tests for inherited cancer susceptibility.American Journal of Medical Genetics A. 2005,135:41–46.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Bubela TM, Caulfield TA: Do the print media “hype” genetic research? A comparison of newspaper stories and peer-reviewed research papers.Canadian Medical Association Journal. 2004,170:1399–1407.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Condit C: What is “public opinion” about genetics?Nature Reviews Genetics. 2001,2:811–815.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Lanie AD, Jayaratne TE, Sheldon JP, et al.: Exploring the public understanding of basic genetic concepts.Journal of Genetic Counseling. 2004,13:305–320.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Rose AL, Peters N, Shea JA, Armstrong K: Attitudes and misconceptions about predictive genetic testing for cancer risk.Community Genetics. 2005,8:145–151.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Rose A, Peters N, Shea JA, Armstrong K: The association between knowledge and attitudes about genetic testing for cancer risk in the United States.Journal of Health Communication. 2005,10:309–321.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Wideroff L, Vadaparampil ST, Breen N, Croyle RT, Freedman AN: Awareness of genetic testing for increased cancer risk in the year 2000 National Health Interview Survey.Community Genetics. 2003,6:147–156.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Eisenbruch M, Yeo SS, Meiser B, et al.: Optimising clinical practice in cancer genetics with cultural competence: Lessons to be learned from ethnographic research with Chinese-Australians.Social Science & Medicine. 2004,59:235–248.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Kenen R, Arden-Jones A, Eeles R: We are talking, but are they listening? Communication patterns in families with a history of breast/ovarian cancer (HBOC).Psycholoncology. 2004,13:335–345.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Richards M: Annotation: Genetic research, family life, and clinical practice.Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 1998,39:291–305.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. Richards M, Ponder M: Lay understanding of genetics: a test of a hypothesis.Journal of Medical Genetics. 1996,33:1032–1036.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  69. Henderson BJ, Maguire BT. Three lay mental models of disease inheritance.Social Science & Medicine. 2000,50:293–301.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  70. Rogers EM:Diffusions of Innovations (4th Ed.). New York: The Free Press, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  71. McCombs M: News influence on our pictures of the world. In Bryant J, Zillmann D (eds),Media Effects. Advances in Theory and Research. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1994, 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Gerbner G, Gross L, Morgan M, Signorielli N: Growing up with television: The cultivation perspective. In Bryant J, Zillmann D (eds),Media Effects. Advances in Theory and Research. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1994, 17–43.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Solomon DS: A social marketing perspective on communication campaigns. In Rice RE, Atkin CK (eds),Public Communication Campaigns (2nd Ed.). Newbury Park: Sage, 1989, 87–104.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Maibach EW, Rothschild ML, Novelli WD: Social marketing. In Glanz K, Rimer BK, Lewis FM (eds),Health Behavior and Health Education. Theory, Research and Practice (3rd Ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Petty RE, Cacioppo JT:Attitudes and Persuasion: Classic and Contemporary Approaches. Dubuque, IA: Brown, 1981.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Petty RE, Priester JR: Mass media attitude change: Implications of the elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In Bryant J, Zillmann D (eds),Media Effects. Advances in Theory and Research. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1994, 91–122.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Ong LM, de Haes JC, Hoos AM, Lammes FB: Doctorpatient communication: A review of the literature.Social Science & Medicine. 1995,40:903–918.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  78. Dutta-Bergman MJ: The relation between health-orientation, provider-patient communication, and satisfaction: An individual-difference approach.Health Communication. 2005,18:291–303.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Dutta-Bergman MJ: Developing a profile of consumer intention to seek out additional information beyond a doctor: The role of communicative and motivation variables.Health Communication. 2005,17:1–16.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Dutta-Bergman MJ: The readership of health magazines: The role of health orientation.Health Marking Quarterly. 2004,22:27–49.

    Google Scholar 

  81. Omenn GS: Genomics and public health: A vision for the future. In Hernanadez LM (ed),Implications of Genomics for Public Health: Workshop Summary. Washington DC: Institute of Medicine, The National Academies Press, 2005, 5.

    Google Scholar 

  82. Oldenburg B, Parcel GS: Diffusion of innovations. In Glanz K, Rimer BK, Lewis FM (eds),Health Behavior and Health Education: Theory, Research, and Practice (3rd Ed.). New York: Jossey-Bass, 2002, 312–334.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Burke W: Genetic testing in primary care.Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics. 2004,5:1–14.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  84. Burke W, Acheson L, Botkin J, et al.: Genetics in primary care: A USA faculty development initiative.Community Genetics. 2002,5:138–146.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Burke W, Emery J: Genetics education for primary-care providers. Nature reviews.Genetics. 2002,3:561–566.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  86. Gramling R, Nash J, Siren K, Culpepper L: Predictive genetics in primary care: Expectations for the motivational impact of genetic testing affects the importance family physicians place on screening for familial cancer risk.Genetics in Medicine. 2003,5:172–175.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Culler D, Grimes SJ, Acheson LS, Wiesner GL: Cancer genetics in primary care.Primary Care. 2004,31:649–683, xi.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Hesse BW, Nelson DE, Kreps GL, et al.: Trust and sources of health information: The impact of the Internet and its implications for health care providers: Findings from the first Health Information National Trends Survey.Archives of Internal Medicine. 2005,165:2618–2624.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Bowen DJ, Burke W, Press NA, et al.: Recruiting families into prevention research: The suntalk study.Annals of Behavioral Medicine. 2005,33:S018.

    Google Scholar 

  90. Karliner LS, Napoles-Springer A, Kerlikowske K, et al.: Missed opportunities: Family history and behavioral risk factors in breast cancer risk assessment among a multiethnic group of women.Journal of General Internal Medicine. 2007,22:308–314.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Ziogas A, Anton-Culver HL: Validation of family history data in cancer family registries.American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2003,24:190–198.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Shields AE, Blumenthal D, Weiss KB, et al.: Barriers to translating emerging genetic research on smoking into clinical practice. Perspectives of primary care physicians.Journal of General Internal Medicine. 2005,20:131–138.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. Barrison AF, Smith C, Oviedo J, Heeren T, Schroy PC III: Colorectal cancer screening and familial risk: A survey of internal medicine residents’ knowledge and practice patterns.The American Journal of Gastroenterology. 2003,98:1410–1416.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. Gramling R, Nash J, Siren K, Eaton C, Culpepper L: Family physician self-efficacy with screening for inherited cancer risk.Annals of Family Medicine. 2004,2:130–132.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Wideroff L, Vadaparampil ST, Greene MH, et al.: Hereditary breast/ovarian and colorectal cancer genetics knowledge in a national sample of US physicians.Journal of Medical Genetics. 2005,42:749–755.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  96. Schroy PC III, Barrison AF, Ling BS, Wilson S, Geller AC: Family history and colorectal cancer screening: A survey of physician knowledge and practice patterns.The American Journal of Gastroenterology. 2002,97:1031–1036.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. Kefford RF, Newton Bishop JA, Bergman W, Tucker MA: Counseling and DNA testing for individuals perceived to be genetically predisposed to melanoma: A consensus statement of the Melanoma Genetics Consortium.Journal of Clinical Oncology. 1999,17:3245–3251.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  98. Armstrong K, Weber B, Ubel PA, Guerra C, Schwartz JS: Interest in BRCA1/2 testing in a primary care population.Preventive Medicine. 2002,34:590–595.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  99. White DB, Jenkins J, Vonham V, Stevens N, McBride CM: Too many referrals for BRCA1 and BRCA2 genetic services by family physicians?Annals of Behavioral Medicine. 2007,33:S093.

    Google Scholar 

  100. Gramling R, Anthony D, Lowery J, et al.: Association between screening family medical history in general medical care and lower burden of cancer worry among women with a close family history of breast cancer.Genetics in Medicine. 2005,7:640–645.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  101. Blazer KR, MacDonald DJ, Ricker C, et al.: Outcomes from intensive training in genetic cancer risk counseling for clinicians.Genetics in Medicine. 2005,7:40–47.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  102. Piniewski-Bond J, Celestino PB, Mahoney MC, et al.: A cancer genetics education campaign: Delivering parallel messages to clinicians and the public.Journal of Cancer Education. 2003,18:96–99.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  103. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Office of Genomics and Disease Prevention:Genomics and Population Health, United States, 2003. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Office of Genomics and Disease Prevention, 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  104. Marteau TM, Lerman C: Genetic risk and behavioural change.British Medical Journal. 2001,322:1056–1059.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  105. Frosch DL, Mello P, Lerman C: Behavioral consequences of testing for obesity risk.Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention. 2005,14:1485–1489.

    Google Scholar 

  106. Ryder K, Haubrich DJ, Calla D, et al.: Psychosocial impact of repeat HIV-negative testing: A follow-up study.AIDS and Behavior. 2005,9:459–464.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  107. Audrain-McGovern J, Hughes C, Patterson F: Effecting behavior change: Awareness of family history.American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2003,24:183–189.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  108. Bowen DJ, Ludman E, Press N, Vu T, Burke W: Achieving utility with family history: Colorectal cancer risk.American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2003,24:177–182.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  109. Burke W: Taking family history seriously.Annals of Internal Medicine. 2005,143:388–389.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  110. Guttmacher AE, Collins FS, Carmona RH: The family history—More important than ever.New England Journal of Medicine. 2004,351:2333–2336.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  111. Yoon PW, Scheuner MT, Peterson-Oehlke KL, et al.: Can family history be used as a tool for public health and preventive medicine?Genetics in Medicine. 2002,4:304–310.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  112. Lipkus IM, McBride CM, Pollak KI, Lyna P, Bepler G: Interpretation of genetic risk feedback among African American smokers with low socioeconomic status.Health Psychology. 2004,23:178–188.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  113. McBride CM, Bepler G, Lipkus IM, et al. Incorporating genetic susceptibility feedback into a smoking cessation program for African-American smokers with low income.Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention. 2002,11:521–528.

    Google Scholar 

  114. McBride CM, Lipkus IM, Jolly D, Lyna P: Interest in testing for genetic susceptibility to lung cancer among Black college students “at risk” of becoming cigarette smokers.Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention. 2005,14:2978–2981.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  115. McBride CM, Pollak KI, Bepler G, et al.: Reasons for quitting smoking among low-income African American smokers.Health Psychology. 2001,20:334–340.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  116. McBride CM, Halabi S, Bepler G, et al.: Maximizing the motivational impact of feedback of lung cancer susceptibility on smokers’ desire to quit.Journal of Health Communication. 2000,5:229–241.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  117. Ostroff JS, Hay JL, Primavera LH, et al.: Motivating smoking cessation among dental patients: Smokers’ interest in biomarker testing for susceptibility to tobacco-related cancers.Nicotine & Tobacco Research. 1999,1:347–355.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  118. Lerman C, Gold K, Audrain J, et al.: Incorporating biomarkers of exposure and genetic susceptibility into smoking cessation treatment: Effects on smoking-related cognitions, emotions, and behavior change.Health Psychology. 1997,16:87–99.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  119. McClure JB. Are biomarkers a useful aid in smoking cessation? A review and analysis of the literature.Behavioral Medicine. 2001,27:37–47.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  120. Merikangas KR, Risch N: Genomic priorities and public health.Science. 2003,302:599–601.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  121. Carlsten C, Burke W: Potential for genetics to promote public health: Genetics research on smoking suggests caution about expectations.Journal of the American Medical Association. 2006,296:2480–2482.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  122. Shostak S: Locating gene-environment interaction: At the intersections of genetics and public health.Social Science & Medicine. 2003,56:2327–2342.

    Google Scholar 

  123. Sallis JF, Owen N: Ecological models of health behavior. In Glanz K, Rimer BK, Lewis FM (eds),Health Behavior and Health Education: Theory, Research, and Practice (3rd Ed.). New York: Jossey-Bass, 2002, 462–484.

    Google Scholar 

  124. Bowen DJ, Beresford SAA, Diergaarde B: Social and psychological aspects of ecogenetics. In Costa LG, Eaton DL (eds),Gene-Environment Interactions: Fundamentals of Ecogenetics. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2006, 397–409.

    Google Scholar 

  125. Stokols D: Translating social ecological theory into guidelines for community health promotion.American Journal of Health Promotion. 1996,10:282–298.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  126. Wang C, Bowen DJ, Kardia SL: Research and practice opportunities at the intersection of health education, health behavior, and genomics.Health Education & Behavior. 2005,32:686–701.

    Google Scholar 

  127. Novilla ML, Barnes MD, De La Cruz NG, Williams PN, Rogers J: Public health perspectives on the family: An ecological approach to promoting health in the family and community.Family Community Health. 2006,29:28–42.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  128. Buller DB, Buller MK, Kane I: Web-based strategies to disseminate a sun safety curriculum to public elementary schools and state-licensed child-care facilities.Health Psychology. 2005,24:470–476.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  129. Glanz K, Steffen A, Elliott T, O’Riordan D: Diffusion of an effective skin cancer prevention program: Design, theoretical foundations, and first-year implementation.Health Psychology. 2005,24:477–487.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  130. Lewis E, Mayer JA, Slymen D, et al.: Disseminating a sun safety program to zoological parks: The effects of tailoring.Health Psychology. 2005,24:456–462.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  131. Kardia S: Bridging genomics and population health. In Hernandez LM (ed),Implications of Genomics for Public Health: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: Institute of Medicine, The National Academies Press, 2005, 10.

    Google Scholar 

  132. Garraway LA, Widlund HR, Rubin MA, et al.: Integrative genomic analyses identify MITF as a lineage survival oncogene amplified in malignant melanoma.Nature. 2005,436:117–122.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  133. Curtin JA, Fridlyand J, Kageshita T, et al.: Distinct sets of genetic alterations in melanoma.New England Journal of Medicine. 2005,353:2135–2147.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  134. Landi MT, Bauer J, Pfeiffer RM, et al.: MC1R germline variants confer risk for BRAF-mutant melanoma.Science. 2006,313:521–522.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Author notes

  1. Jennifer L. Hay Ph.D.

    Present address: Department of Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, 641 Lexington Avenue, Seventh Floor, 10022, New York, NY

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA

    Hendrika W. Meischke Ph.D. & Deborah J. Bowen Ph.D.

  2. San Diego State University, USA

    Joni Mayer Ph.D.

  3. University of British Columbia, USA

    Jeanne Shoveller Ph.D.

  4. University of Oregon, USA

    Nancy Press Ph.D.

  5. Kaiser Permanente, Oakland, CA

    Maryam Asgari M.D.

  6. University of New Mexico, USA

    Marianne Berwick Ph.D.

  7. University of Washington, USA

    Wylie Burke M.D., Ph.D.

Authors
  1. Jennifer L. Hay Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hendrika W. Meischke Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Deborah J. Bowen Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Joni Mayer Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jeanne Shoveller Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Nancy Press Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Maryam Asgari M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Marianne Berwick Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Wylie Burke M.D., Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

This article was completed under the grant support of R01 CA107430 to Deborah Bowen, K07 CA98106 to Jennifer Hay, and K05K100051 to Joni Mayer.

About this article

Cite this article

Hay, J.L., Meischke, H.W., Bowen, D.J. et al. Anticipating dissemination of cancer genomics in public health: A theoretical approach to psychosocial and behavioral challenges. ann. behav. med. 34, 275–286 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02874552

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02874552

Keywords

Search

Navigation