Engagement with Genetic Information and Uptake of Genetic Testing: the Role of Trust and Personal Cancer History
- 371 Downloads
We used national survey data to (1) determine the extent to which individuals trust the sources from which they are most likely to receive information about cancer-related genetic tests (BRCA1/2, Lynch syndrome), (2) examine how level of trust for sources of genetic information might be related to cancer-related genetic testing uptake, and (3) determine whether key factors, such as cancer history and numeracy, moderate the latter association. We used cross-sectional data from the Health Information National Trends Survey. Our study sample included individuals who responded that they had heard or read about genetic tests (n = 1117). All analyses accounted for complex survey design. Although respondents trusted information from health professionals the most, they were significantly less likely to report hearing about genetic testing from such professionals than via television (p < 0.01). Regardless of source, higher levels of trust in the information source from which participants heard about genetic tests were associated with increased odds of genetic testing uptake, particularly among those with a personal cancer history. Numeracy was not associated with genetic testing uptake. Because health professionals were among the most trusted health information sources, they may serve as important brokers of genetic testing information for those with a personal cancer history.
KeywordsGenetic testing Trust Genetic information
This work was funded by intramural National Cancer Institute funds. The authors have no conflicts of interest. The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the National Institutes of Health or any other governmental agency.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
This study includes the secondary data analysis of human subject research, as such informed consent was not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- 1.Agurs-Collins T, Ferrer R, Ottenbacher A, Waters EA, O'Connell ME, Hamilton JG (2015) Public awareness of direct-to-consumer genetic tests: findings from the 2013 U.S. Health Information National Trends Survey. J Cancer Educ 30(4):799–807. doi: 10.1007/s13187-014-0784-x CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 7.Clarke MA, Moore JL, Steege LM, Koopman RJ, Belden JL, Canfield SM, Meadows SE, Elliott SG, Kim MS (2015) Health information needs, sources, and barriers of primary care patients to achieve patient-centered care: a literature review. Health Inform J. doi: 10.1177/1460458215602939 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 9.Daly, Mary B., et al. (2016) "Genetic/familial high-risk assessment: breast and ovarian, version 2.2015." Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network 14(2):153–162Google Scholar
- 12.Federal Drug Administration (2013) Warning letter. In: No. GEN1300666, ed. Federal Drug Administration. Silver Spring, MDGoogle Scholar
- 13.Federal Drug Administration (2015) FDA permits marketing of first direct-to-consumer genetic carrier test for Bloom syndrome. FDA News Release.http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm435003.htm. Accessed 2016
- 14.Finlay E, Stopfer JE, Burlingame E, Evans KG, Nathanson KL, Weber BL, Armstrong K, Rebbeck TR, Domchek SM (2008) Factors determining dissemination of results and uptake of genetic testing in families with known BRCA1/2 mutations. Genet Test 12(1):81–91. doi: 10.1089/gte.2007.0037 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 20.Hegde M, Ferber M, Mao R, Samowitz W, Ganguly A, Genetics Working Group of the American College of Medical, and Committee Genomics Laboratory Quality Assurance (2014) ACMG technical standards and guidelines for genetic testing for inherited colorectal cancer (Lynch syndrome, familial adenomatous polyposis, and MYH-associated polyposis). Genet Med 16(1):101–116. doi: 10.1038/gim.2013.166 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 21.Institute of Medicine Committee on Health Literacy (2004) Health literacy: a prescription to end confusion. Institute of Medicine. The National Academies Press: Institute of Medicine, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
- 22.Jagsi R, Griffith KA, Kurian AW, Morrow M, Hamilton AS, Graff JJ, Katz SJ, Hawley ST (2015) Concerns about cancer risk and experiences with genetic testing in a diverse population of patients with breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 33(14):1584–1591. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2014.58.5885 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 27.Nelson HD, Fu R, Goddard K, Mitchell JP, Okinaka-Hu L, Pappas M, Zakher B (2013) Risk assessment, genetic counseling, and genetic testing for BRCA-related cancer: systematic review to update the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Evidence Syntheses, formerly Systematic Evidence Reviews, Rockville (MD)Google Scholar
- 29.Petty RE, Wegener DT (1998) Attitude change: multiple roles for persuasion variables. In: Fiske ST, Gilbert DT, Lindzey G (eds) The handbook of social psychology. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, pp 323–390Google Scholar
- 34.Taber JM, Chang CQ, Lam TK, Gillanders EM, Hamilton JG, Schully SD (2015) Prevalence and correlates of receiving and sharing high-penetrance cancer genetic test results: findings from the Health Information National Trends Survey. Public Health Genomics 18(2):67–77. doi: 10.1159/000368745 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 36.The National Cancer Institute (2015) HINTS 4 Cycle 3. http://hints.cancer.gov/. Accessed 2016
- 37.United States Census Bureau (2016) US and world population clock.http://www.census.gov/popclock/. Accessed 2016
- 38.Waters EA, Muff J, Hamilton JG (2014) Multifactorial beliefs about the role of genetics and behavior in common health conditions: prevalence and associations with participant characteristics and engagement in health behaviors. Genet Med 16(12):913–921. doi: 10.1038/gim.2014.49 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar