Advertisement

Journal of Behavioral Medicine

, Volume 38, Issue 5, pp 777–786 | Cite as

Effects of genetic and environmental risk assessment feedback on colorectal cancer screening adherence

  • Ronald E. MyersEmail author
  • Karen Ruth
  • Sharon L. Manne
  • James Cocroft
  • Randa Sifri
  • Barry Ziring
  • Desiree Burgh
  • Eric Ross
  • David S. Weinberg
Article

Abstract

Little is known about the impact of genetic and environmental risk assessment (GERA) feedback on colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. In a recently completed randomized trial, primary care patients received GERA feedback based on a blood test for genetic polymorphisms and serum folate level (GERA Group) versus usual care (Control Group). Subsequently, participants were offered CRC screening. Among participants who received GERA feedback, being at elevated risk was negatively associated with prospective CRC screening adherence. Secondary analyses of data from this study were performed to identify independent predictors of adherence among participants who received GERA feedback. We obtained baseline survey, follow-up survey, and endpoint medical records data on sociodemographic background, knowledge, psychosocial characteristics, risk status, and adherence for 285 GERA Group participants. Univariate and multivariable analyses were performed to identify predictors of CRC screening adherence. Following a 6-month outcomes observation period, we also conducted two focus groups with GERA Group participants to assess their perceptions of GERA risk feedback and screening. Content analyses of focus group data were evaluated to gain insights into participant response to risk feedback. Overall, half of GERA Group participants adhered to screening within 6 months after randomization. Multivariable analyses showed a statistically significant interaction between race and GERA feedback status relative to screening adherence (p = 0.043). Among participants who received average risk feedback, adherence was comparable among whites (49.7 %) and nonwhites (54.1 %); however, among those at elevated risk, adherence was substantially higher among whites (66.7 %) compared to nonwhites (33.3 %). Focus group findings suggest that whites were more likely than nonwhites to view elevated risk feedback as a prompt to screen. In response to receiving elevated risk feedback, nonwhites were more likely than whites to report feeling anxiety about the likelihood of being diagnosed with CRC. Further research is needed to explore race-related CRC screening differences in response to GERA feedback.

Keywords

Genetic Environment Risk assessment Cancer Colorectal Screening Adherence 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the invaluable contributions of Anett Petrich, Heidi Swan, Thomas Wolf and members of the Fox Chase Cancer Center Genomics Facility. This research was supported by Grant R01 CA112230 and P30 CA006927 from the National Institutes of Health.

Conflict of interest

Ronald E. Myers, Karen Ruth, Sharon L. Manne, James Cocroft, Randa Sifri, Barry Ziring, Desiree Burgh, Eric Ross and David S. Weinberg declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and animal rights and Informed Consent

All procedures followed were in accordance with ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000. Informed consent was obtained from all patients for being included in the study.

References

  1. Baier, M., Calonge, N., Cutter, G., McClatchey, M., Schoentgen, S., Hines, S., … Ahnen, D. (2000). Validity of self-reported colorectal cancer screening behavior. Cancer Epidemiology and Biomarkers Prevention, 9, 229–232.Google Scholar
  2. Bennett, P., Phelps, C., Hilgart, J., Hood, K., Brain, K., & Murray, A. (2011). Concerns and coping during cancer genetic risk assessment. Psycho-oncology. doi: 10.1002/pon.1938.PubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Bloss, C. S., Wineinger, N. E., Darst, B. F., Schork, N. J., & Topol, E. J. (2013). Impact of direct-to-consumer genomic testing at long term follow-up. Journal of Medical Genetics, 50, 393–400.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Campbell, W. K., & Sedikides, C. (1999). Self-threat magnifies the self-serving bias: A meta-analytic integration. Review of General Psychology, 3, 22–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cella, D., Hughes, C., Peterman, A., Chang, C. H., Peshkin, B. N., Schwartz, M. D., & Lerman, C. (2002). A brief assessment of concerns associated with genetic testing for cancer: The Multidimensional Impact of Cancer Risk Assessment (MICRA) Questionnaire. Health Psychology, 21, 564–572.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Cioffi, D. (1990). Beyond attentional strategies: A cognitive-perceptual model of somatic interpretation. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 25–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Collins, R. E., Wright, A. J., & Marteau, T. M. (2011). Impact of communicating personalized genetic risk information on perceived control over risk: A systematic review. Genetics in Medicine, 13, 273–277.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Croyle, R. T. (1990). Biased appraisal of high blood pressure. Preventive Medicine, 19, 40–44.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Croyle, R. T., Sun, Y. C., & Hart, M. (1997). Processing risk factor information: Defensive biases in health-related judgments and memory. In K. J. Petrie & J. A. Weinman (Eds.), Perceptions of health and illness (pp. 267–483). New York, NY: Overseas Publishers Association.Google Scholar
  10. Croyle, R. T., Sun, Y., & Louie, D. H. (1993). Psychological minimization of cholesterol test results: Moderators of appraisal in college students and community residents. Health Psychology, 12, 503–507.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Ghazarian, A. A., Simonds, N. I., Bennett, K., Pimentel, C. B., Ellison, G. L., Gillanders, E. M., … Mechanic, L. E. (2013). A review of NCI’s extramural grant portfolio: Identifying opportunities for future research in genes and environment in cancer. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, 22, 501–507.Google Scholar
  12. Giovannucci, E., Stampfer, M. J., Colditz, G. A., Hunder, D. J., Fuchs, C., Rosner, B. A., … Willett, W. C. (1998). Multivitamin use, folate, and colon cancer in women in the Nurses’ Health Study. Annals of Internal Medicine, 129, 517–524.Google Scholar
  13. Green, E. D., & Guyer, M. S. (2011). Charting a course for genomic medicine from base pairs to bedside. Nature, 470, 204–213.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Griffith, K. A., McGuire, D. B., Royak-Schaler, R., Plowden, K. O., & Steinberger, E. K. (2008). Influence of family history and preventive health behaviors on colorectal cancer screening in African Americans. Cancer, 113, 276–285.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Heshka, J. T., Palleschi, C., Howley, H., Wilson, B., & Wells, P. S. (2008). A systematic review of perceived risks, psychological and behavioral impacts of genetic testing. Genetics in Medicine, 10, 19–32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Hilgart, J., Phelps, C., Bennett, P., Hood, K., Brian, K., & Murray, A. (2010). “I have always believed I was at high risk…” The role of expectation in emotional responses to the receipt of an average, moderate or high cancer genetic risk assessment result: A thematic analysis of free-text questionnaire comments. Familial Cancer, 9, 469–477.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Horowitz, M., Wilner, N., & Alvarez, W. (1979). Impact of event scale: A measure of subjective stress. Psychosomatic Medicine, 41, 209–218.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Howell, J. L., & Shepperd, J. A. (2013). Reducing health-information avoidance through contemplation. Psychological Science, 24, 1696–1703.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Iselin, M. G., & Addis, M. E. (2003). Effects of perceived etiology on perceived helpfulness of treatments for depression. Cognitive Therapy Research, 27, 2005–2222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jemmott, J. B., Ditto, P. H., & Croyle, R. T. (1986). Judging health status: Effects of perceived prevalence and personal relevance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 899–905.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Keku, T, Millikan, R., Worley, K., Winkel, S., Eaton, A., Biscocho, L., … Sandler, R. (2002). 5,10-Methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase codon 677 and 1298 polymorphisms and colon cancer in African Americans and whites. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, 11, 1611–1621.Google Scholar
  22. Kennedy, D. A., Stern, S. J., Matok, I., Moretti, M. E., Sarkar, M., Adams-Webber, T., et al. (2012). Folate intake, MTHFR Polymorphisms, and the risk of colorectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Cancer Epidemiology, Article ID 952508.Google Scholar
  23. Kim, Y. I. (1999). Folate and cancer prevention: A new medical application of folate beyond hyperhomocysteinemia and neural tube defects. Nutrition Reviews, 57, 314–321.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 480–498.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. LeMarchand, L. L., Wilkens, L. R., Kolonel, L. N., & Henderson, B. E. (2005). The MTHFR C677T polymorphism and colorectal cancer: The multiethnic cohort study. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention, 14, 1198–1203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ma, J., Stampfer, M. J., Giovannucci, E., Artigas, C., Hunter, D. J., Fuchs, C., … Rozen, R. (1997). Methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase polymorphism, dietary interactions, and risk of colorectal cancer. Cancer Research, 57, 1098–1102.Google Scholar
  27. McBride, C. M., Bryan, A. D., Bray, M. S., Swan, G. E., & Green, E. D. (2013). Health behavior change: Can genomics improve behavioral adherence? American Journal of Public Health, 102, 401–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. McBride, C. M., Koehly, L. M., Sanderson, S. C., & Kaphingst, K. A. (2010). 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. McCaul, K. D., Thiesse-Duffy, E., & Wilson, P. (1992). Coping with medical diagnosis: The effects of at-risk versus disease labels over time. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22, 1340–1355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Meiser, B. (2005). Psychological impact of genetic testing for cancer susceptibility: An update of the literature. Psycho-Oncology, 14, 1060–1074.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Myers, R. E. (2005). Decision counseling in cancer prevention and control. Health Psychology, 24, S71–S77.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Myers, R. E., Bittner-Fagan, H., Daskalakis, C., Sifri, R., Vernon, S. W., Cocroft, J., & Andrel, J. (2013). A randomized controlled trial of a tailored navigation and a standard intervention in colorectal cancer screening. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention, 22, 109–117.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Myers, R. E., Daskalakis, C., Kunkel, J. S., Cocroft, J. R., Riggio, J. M., Capkin, M., & Braddock, C. H. (2011a). Mediated decision support in prostate cancer screening: A randomized controlled trial of decision counseling. Patient Education and Counseling, 83, 240–246.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Myers, R. E., Hyslop, T., Sifri, R., Bittner-Fagan, H, Katurakes, N., Crocroft, J., … Wolf, T. (2008). Tailored navigation in colorectal cancer screening. Medical Care, 46, S123–S131.Google Scholar
  35. Myers, R. E., Jepson, C., Ross, E., Jepson, C., Wolf, T., Balshem, A., … Leventhal, H. (1994). Modeling adherence to colorectal cancer screening. Preventive Medicine, 23, 142–151.Google Scholar
  36. Myers, R. E., Manne, S. L., Wilfond, B., Sifri, R., Ziring, B., Wolf, T., … Weinberg, D. S. (2011). A randomized trial of genetic and environmental risk assessment (GERA) for colorectal cancer risk in primary care: Trial design and baseline findings. Contemporary Clinical Trials, 32, 25–31.Google Scholar
  37. Myers, R. E., Sifri, R., Daskalakis, C., DiCarlo, M., Ramakrishnan Geethakumari, P., Cocroft, J., … Vernon, S. W. (2014). Increasing colon cancer screening in primary care among African Americans. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. doi: 10.1093/jnci/dju344.
  38. Myers, R. E., Sifri, R., Hyslop, T., Rosenthal, M., Vernon, S. W., Cocroft, J., … Wender, R. (2007). A randomized controlled trial of the impact of targeted and tailored interventions on colorectal cancer screening. Cancer, 110, 2083–2091.Google Scholar
  39. Palaniappan, L. P., Maxwell, A. E., Crespi, C. M., Wong, E. C., Shing, J., & Wang, E. J. (2011). Population colorectal cancer screening estimates: Comparing self-report to electronic health record data in California. International Journal of Cancer Research and Prevention, 4, 28540.Google Scholar
  40. Phelps, C., Bennett, P., Hood, K., Brain, K., & Murray, A. (2013). A self-help coping intervention can reduce anxiety and avoidant health behaviours whilst waiting for cancer genetic risk information: Results of a phase III randomized trial. Psycho-Oncology, 22, 837–844.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Pyszczynski, T., Hold, K., & Greenberg, J. (1987). Depression, self-focused attention, and expectancies for positive and negative future life events for self and others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 994–1001.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Ransohoff, D. F., & Khoury, M. J. (2010). Personal genomics: Information can be harmful. European Journal of Clinical Investigation, 40, 64–68.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Renner, B. (2004). Biased reasoning: Adaptive responses to health risk feedback. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 384–396.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Ryan, B. M., & Weir, D. G. (2001). Relevance of folate metabolism in the pathogenesis of colorectal cancer. The Journal of Laboratory and Clinical Medicine, 138, 164–176.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Scheuner, M. T., Sieverding, P., & Shekelle, P. G. (2008). Delivery of genomic medicine for common chronic adult diseases: A systematic review. The Journal of the American Medical Association, 299, 1320–1334.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Taioli, E., Garza, M. A., Ahn, Y. O., Bishop, D. T., Bost, J., Budai, B., … Little, J. (2009). Meta- and pooled analyses of the methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR) C677T polymorphism and colorectal cancer: A HuGE-GSEC review. American Journal of Epidemiology, 15, 1207–1021.Google Scholar
  47. Taylor, S. E., & Brown, J. D. (1998). Illusion and well-being: A social psychology perspective on mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 193–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Turner, R. M. (1998). Adaptive reasoning for real-world problems: A schema-based approach. New York, NY: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  49. Vernon, S.W., Bartholomew, L. K., McQueen, A., Bettencourt, J. L., Greisinger, A., Coan, S. P., … Myers, R. E. (2011). A randomized controlled trial of a tailored interactive computer-delivered intervention to promote colorectal cancer screening: Sometimes more is just the same. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 41, 284–299.Google Scholar
  50. Vernon, S. W., Myers, R. E., & Tilley, B. C. (1997). Development and validation of an instrument to measure factors related to colorectal cancer screening adherence. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention, 6, 825–832.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Weinberg, D. S., Myers, R. E., Keenan, E., Ruth, K., Sifri, R., Ziring, B., … Manne, L. (2014). Gene environment risk assessment and colorectal cancer screening in an average risk population: A randomized controlled trial. Annals of Internal Medicine, 151, 537–545.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ronald E. Myers
    • 1
    Email author
  • Karen Ruth
    • 2
  • Sharon L. Manne
    • 3
  • James Cocroft
    • 1
  • Randa Sifri
    • 1
  • Barry Ziring
    • 1
  • Desiree Burgh
    • 1
  • Eric Ross
    • 2
  • David S. Weinberg
    • 2
  1. 1.Thomas Jefferson UniversityPhiladelphiaUSA
  2. 2.Fox Chase Cancer CenterPhiladelphiaUSA
  3. 3.Cancer Institute of New JerseyNew BrunswickUSA

Personalised recommendations