Engagement with Genetic Information and Uptake of Genetic Testing: the Role of Trust and Personal Cancer History

Abstract

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.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  1. 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

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Anderson K, Jacobson JS, Heitjan DF, Zivin JG, Hershman D, Neugut AI, Grann VR (2006) Cost-effectiveness of preventive strategies for women with a BRCA1 or a BRCA2 mutation. Ann Intern Med 144(6):397–406

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Berg JS, Khoury MJ, Evans JP (2011) Deploying whole genome sequencing in clinical practice and public health: meeting the challenge one bin at a time. Genet Med 13(6):499–504. doi:10.1097/GIM.0b013e318220aaba

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Bruine de Bruin W, McNair SJ, Taylor AL, Summers B, Strough J (2015) “Thinking about numbers is not my idea of fun”: need for cognition mediates age differences in numeracy performance. Med Decis Mak 35(1):22–26. doi:10.1177/0272989X14542485

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Caulfield T, Ries NM, Ray PN, Shuman C, Wilson B (2010) Direct-to-consumer genetic testing: good, bad or benign? Clin Genet 77(2):101–105. doi:10.1111/j.1399-0004.2009.01291.x

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Chen S, Parmigiani G (2007) Meta-analysis of BRCA1 and BRCA2 penetrance. J Clin Oncol 25(11):1329–1333. doi:10.1200/JCO.2006.09.1066

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Cuevas AG, O'Brien K, Saha S (2016) African American experiences in healthcare: "I always feel like I'm getting skipped over". Health Psychol. doi:10.1037/hea0000368

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 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):153–162

  10. 10.

    Darst BF, Madlensky L, Schork NJ, Topol EJ, Bloss CS (2014) Characteristics of genomic test consumers who spontaneously share results with their health care provider. Health Commun 29(1):105–108. doi:10.1080/10410236.2012.717216

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Dinh TA, Rosner BI, Atwood JC, Boland CR, Syngal S, Vasen HF, Gruber SB, Burt RW (2011) Health benefits and cost-effectiveness of primary genetic screening for Lynch syndrome in the general population. Cancer Prev Res (Phila) 4(1):9–22. doi:10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-10-0262

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Federal Drug Administration (2013) Warning letter. In: No. GEN1300666, ed. Federal Drug Administration. Silver Spring, MD

  13. 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. 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

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Freedman AN, Wideroff L, Olson L, Davis W, Klabunde C, Srinath KP, Reeve BB, Croyle RT, Ballard-Barbash R (2003) US physicians’ attitudes toward genetic testing for cancer susceptibility. Am J Med Genet A 120A(1):63–71. doi:10.1002/ajmg.a.10192

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Gaglio B, Glasgow RE, Bull SS (2012) Do patient preferences for health information vary by health literacy or numeracy? A qualitative assessment. J Health Commun 17(Suppl 3):109–121. doi:10.1080/10810730.2012.712616

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Garber JE, Offit K (2005) Hereditary cancer predisposition syndromes. J Clin Oncol 23(2):276–292. doi:10.1200/JCO.2005.10.042

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Guillem JG, Wood WC, Moley JF, Berchuck A, Karlan BY, Mutch DG, Gagel RF et al (2006) ASCO/SSO review of current role of risk-reducing surgery in common hereditary cancer syndromes. J Clin Oncol 24(28):4642–4660. doi:10.1200/JCO.2005.04.5260

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Hanoch Y, Miron-Shatz T, Rolison JJ, Ozanne E (2014) Understanding of BRCA1/2 genetic tests results: the importance of objective and subjective numeracy. Psychooncology 23(10):1142–1148. doi:10.1002/pon.3537

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. 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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. 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 DC

  22. 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

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Klitzman R, Chung W, Marder K, Shanmugham A, Chin LJ, Stark M, Leu CS, Appelbaum PS (2013) Attitudes and practices among internists concerning genetic testing. J Genet Couns 22(1):90–100. doi:10.1007/s10897-012-9504-z

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Kowalczyk N, Draper LJ (2012) Trends in patient information preferences and acquisition. Radiol Technol 83(4):316–324

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Lea DH, Kaphingst KA, Bowen D, Lipkus I, Hadley DW (2011) Communicating genetic and genomic information: health literacy and numeracy considerations. Public Health Genomics 14(4–5):279–289. doi:10.1159/000294191

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Lerman C, Daly M, Masny A, Balshem A (1994) Attitudes about genetic testing for breast-ovarian cancer susceptibility. J Clin Oncol 12(4):843–850

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. 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 

  28. 28.

    Paasche-Orlow MK, Wolf MS (2010) Promoting health literacy research to reduce health disparities. J Health Commun 15(Suppl 2):34–41. doi:10.1080/10810730.2010.499994

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. 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 323–390

    Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Schwartz MD, Lerman C, Brogan B, Peshkin BN, Halbert CH, DeMarco T, Lawrence W et al (2004) Impact of BRCA1/BRCA2 counseling and testing on newly diagnosed breast cancer patients. J Clin Oncol 22(10):1823–1829. doi:10.1200/JCO.2004.04.086

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Simon MS, Petrucelli N (2009) Hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome: the impact of race on uptake of genetic counseling and testing. Methods Mol Biol 471:487–500. doi:10.1007/978-1-59745-416-2_25

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Singer E, Antonucci T, Van Hoewyk J (2004) Racial and ethnic variations in knowledge and attitudes about genetic testing. Genet Test 8(1):31–43. doi:10.1089/109065704323016012

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Suri VR, Majid S, Chang YK, Foo S (2016) Assessing the influence of health literacy on health information behaviors: a multi-domain skills-based approach. Patient Educ Couns 99(6):1038–1045. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2015.12.017

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. 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

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Tambor ES, Rimer BK, Strigo TS (1997) Genetic testing for breast cancer susceptibility: awareness and interest among women in the general population. Am J Med Genet 68(1):43–49

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    The National Cancer Institute (2015) HINTS 4 Cycle 3. http://hints.cancer.gov/. Accessed 2016

  37. 37.

    United States Census Bureau (2016) US and world population clock.http://www.census.gov/popclock/. Accessed 2016

  38. 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

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Watson EK, Shickle D, Qureshi N, Emery J, Austoker J (1999) The ‘new genetics’ and primary care: GPs’ views on their role and their educational needs. Fam Pract 16(4):420–425

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Weiss BD, Mays MZ, Martz W, Castro KM, DeWalt DA, Pignone MP, Mockbee J, Hale FA (2005) Quick assessment of literacy in primary care: the newest vital sign. Ann Fam Med 3(6):514–522. doi:10.1370/afm.405

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

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.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Megan C. Roberts.

Ethics declarations

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.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOCX 12 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Roberts, M.C., Taber, J.M. & Klein, W.M. Engagement with Genetic Information and Uptake of Genetic Testing: the Role of Trust and Personal Cancer History. J Canc Educ 33, 893–900 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-016-1160-9

Download citation

Keywords

  • Genetic testing
  • Trust
  • Genetic information