Abstract
Individuals frequently have difficulty understanding how behavior can reduce genetically-conferred risk for diseases such as colon cancer. With increasing opportunities to purchase genetic tests, communication strategies are needed for presenting information in ways that optimize comprehension and adaptive behavior. Using the Common-Sense Model, we tested the efficacy of a strategy for providing information about the relationships (links) among the physiological processes underlying disease risk and protective action on understanding, protective action motivations, and willingness to purchase tests. We tested the generalizability of the strategy’s effects across varying risk levels, for genetic tests versus tests of a non-genetic biomarker, and when using graphic and numeric risk formats. In an internet-based experiment, 749 adults from four countries responded to messages about a hypothetical test for colon cancer risk. Messages varied by Risk-Action Link Information (provision or no provision of information describing how a low-fat diet reduces risk given positive results, indicating presence of a gene fault), Risk Increment (20%, 50%, or 80% risk given positive results), Risk Format (numeric or graphic presentation of risk increments), and Test Type (genetic or enzyme). Providing risk-action link information enhanced beliefs of coherence (understanding how a low-fat diet reduces risk) and response efficacy (low-fat diets effectively reduce risk) and lowered appraisals of anticipated risk of colon cancer given positive results. These effects held across risk increments, risk formats, and test types. For genetic tests, provision of risk-action link information reduced the amount individuals were willing to pay for testing. Brief messages explaining how action can reduce genetic and biomarker-detected risks can promote beliefs motivating protective action. By enhancing understanding of behavioral control, they may reduce the perceived value of genetic risk information.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
23andme. (2011). Downloaded on May 28 2011 from the 23andme website: http://www.23andme.com/
Beery, T. A., & Williams, J. K. (2007). Risk reduction and health promotion behaviors following genetic testing for adult-onset disorders. Genetic Testing, 11, 111–123.
Bishop, A. J., Marteau, T. M., Hall, S., Kitchener, H., & Hayek, P. (2005). Increasing women’s intentions to stop smoking following an abnormal cervical smear test result. Preventive Medicine, 41, 179–185.
Brownlee, S., Leventhal, H., & Leventhal, E. A. (2000). Regulation, self-regulation and regulation of the self in maintaining physical health. In M. Boekartz, P. R. Pintrick, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self regulation (pp. 369–416). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Bruine de Bruin, W., Fischhoff, B., Millstein, S. G., & Halpern-Felsher, B. L. (2000). Verbal and numerical expressions of probability: “It’s a fifty–fifty chance”. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 81, 115–131.
Cameron, L. D. (2008). Illness risk representations and motivations to engage in protective behavior: The case of skin cancer risk. Psychology and Health, 23, 91–112.
Cameron, L. D., & Muller, C. (2009). Psychosocial aspects of genetic testing. Current Opinion in Psychiatry, 22, 218–223.
Cameron, L. D., & Reeve, J. (2006). Risk perceptions, worry, and attitudes about genetic testing for breast cancer susceptibility. Psychology and Health, 21, 211–230.
Cameron, L. D., Sherman, K. A., Marteau, T. M., & Brown, P. M. (2009). Impact of genetic risk information and type of disease on perceived risk, anticipated affect, and expected consequences of genetic tests. Health Psychology, 28, 307–316.
French, D. P., & Marteau, T. M. (2007). Communicating risk. In S. Ayers, A. Baum, C. McManus, S. Newman, K. Wallston, & J. Weinman (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of psychology, health, and medicine (2nd ed., pp. 431–434). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Frosch, D. L., Mello, P., & Lerman, C. (2005). Behavioral consequences of testing for obesity risk. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention, 14, 1485–1489.
Grosse, S., Wordsworth, S., & Payne, K. (2008). Economic methods for valuing the outcomes of genetic testing: Beyond cost-effectiveness analysis. Genetics in Medicine, 10, 648–654.
Hall, J., Fiebig, D. G., King, M. T., Hossain, I., & Louviere, J. J. (2006). What influences participation in genetic carrier testing? Results from a discrete choice experiment. Journal of Health Economics, 25, 520–537.
Hall, S., Weinman, J., & Marteau, T. M. (2004). The motivational impact of informing women smokers of a link between smoking and cervical cancer: The role of coherence. Health Psychology, 23, 419–424.
Ito, H., Matsuo, K., Wakai, K., et al. (2006). An intervention study of smoking cessation with feedback on genetic cancer susceptibility in Japan. Preventive Medicine, 4, 102–108.
Karamanidou, D., Weinman, J., & Horne, R. (2008). Improving haemodialysis patients’ understanding of phosphate-binding medication: A pilot study of a psycho-educational intervention designed to change patients’ perceptions of the problem and treatment. British Journal of Health Psychology, 13, 205–214.
Klein, W. (1997). Objective standards are not enough: Affective, self-evaluative, and behavioral responses to social comparison information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 763–774.
Lerman, C., Croyle, R. T., Tercyak, K. P., & Hamann, H. (2002). Genetic testing: Psychological aspects and implications. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 70, 784–797.
Leventhal, H., Brissette, I., & Leventhal, E. A. (2003). The common-sense model of self-regulation of health and illness. In L. D. Cameron & H. Leventhal (Eds.), The self-regulation of health and illness behaviour (pp. 42–65). London: Routledge.
Lipkus, I. M., Biradavolu, M., Fenn, K., Keller, P., & Rimer, B. (2001). Informing women about their breast cancer risks: Truth and consequences. Health Communication, 13, 205–226.
Marteau, T. M., & Lerman, C. (2001). Genetic risk and behavioural change. British Medical Journal, 322, 1056–1059.
Marteau, T. M., Senior, V., Humphries, S. E., Bobrow, M., Cranston, T., Crook, M. A., et al. (2004). Psychological impact of genetic testing for familial hypercholesterolaemia in a previously aware population: A randomized controlled trial. American Journal of Medical Genetics, 128A, 285–293.
Marteau, T. M., & Weinman, J. (2006). Self-regulation and the behavioural response to DNA risk information: A theoretical analysis and framework for future research. Social Science and Medicine, 62, 1360–1368.
McBride, C. M., Bepher, G., Lipkus, I. M., Lyna, P., Samsa, G., Albright, J., et al. (2002). Incorporating genetic susceptibility feedback into a smoking cessation program for African American smokers with low income. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention, 11, 521–528.
McBride, C. N., Bowen, D., Brody, L. C., Condit, C. M., Croyle, R. T., Gwinn, M., et al. (2010a). Future health applications of genomics: Priorities for communication, behavioral, and social sciences research. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 38, 555–561.
McBride, C. M., Koehly, L. M., Sanderson, S. C., & Kaphingst, K. (2010b). The behavioral response to personalized genetic information: Will genetic risk profiles motivate individuals and families to choose more healthful behaviors? Annual Review of Public Health, 31, 89–103.
Navigenics. (2011). Downloaded on May 28, 2011 from the Navigenics Website: http://www.navigenics.com/
NCCN. (2011). Colorectal cancer screening. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. Downloaded on May 28, 2011 from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Website: http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/f_guidelines.asp
Olsen, J., Donaldson, C., & Pereira, J. (2004). The insensitivity of ‘willingness-to-pay’ to the size of the good: New evidence for health care. Journal of Economic Psychology, 25, 445–460.
Olson, J., & Smith, R. (2001). Theory versus practice: A review of willingness-to-pay in health and health care. Health Economics, 10, 39–52.
President and Fellows of Harvard College. (2007). Your disease risk. Downloaded from Harvard University, School of Public Health Website: http://www.diseaseriskindex.harvard.edu
Sanderson, S. C., & Michie, S. (2007). Genetic testing for heart disease susceptibility: Potential impact on motivaiton to quit smoking. Clinical Genetics, 71, 501–510.
Witte, K., & Allen, M. (2000). A meta-analysis of fear appeals: Implications for effective public health campaigns. Health Education and Behavior, 27, 608–632.
Wright, A. J., Weinman, J., & Marteau, T. M. (2003). The impact of learning of a genetic predisposition to nicotine dependence: An analogue study. Tobacco Control, 12, 227–230.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Cameron, L.D., Marteau, T.M., Brown, P.M. et al. Communication strategies for enhancing understanding of the behavioral implications of genetic and biomarker tests for disease risk: The role of coherence. J Behav Med 35, 286–298 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10865-011-9361-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10865-011-9361-5