» Articles » PMID: 17627392

Genetic Testing for Late-onset Diseases: Effect of Disease Controllability, Test Predictivity, and Gender on the Decision to Take the Test

Overview
Journal Genet Test
Date 2007 Jul 14
PMID 17627392
Citations 5
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

This study was designed to investigate the influence of the predictive power of the genetic test, the disease's controllability, and gender on the intention to take a predictive genetic test. Another aim was to examine the certainty of the intention to take the test. Nine scenarios were presented to a convenience sample of 121 men and women. Each scenario described a hypothetical and devastating late-onset disease and manipulated the level of disease controllability and test predictive value. The more predictivity the test offered and the more controllable the disease, the more the subjects were interested in being tested and the more certain their decision to take the test. Men's decisions were more positive than women's. There were also interactions between disease controllability and gender and between disease controllability and test predictivity. It seems that the factor that most influences the decision not to take the test is low disease controllability. This effect is more pronounced in women. Gender differences in decision making and information processing may be pertinent. The data show a marked gap between the decision itself and the certainty of that decision. The strength of the decision may be a better predictor of actual test uptake than the direction of the decision.

Citing Articles

Genomic information and a person's right not to know: A closer look at variations in hypothetical informational preferences in a German sample.

Flatau L, Reitt M, Duttge G, Lenk C, Zoll B, Poser W PLoS One. 2018; 13(6):e0198249.

PMID: 29924808 PMC: 6010220. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0198249.


The effect of disease risk probability and disease type on interest in clinic-based versus direct-to-consumer genetic testing services.

Sherman K, Shaw L, Champion K, Caldeira F, McCaskill M J Behav Med. 2015; 38(5):706-14.

PMID: 25813985 DOI: 10.1007/s10865-015-9630-9.


The role of distress in uptake and response to predisposition genetic testing: the BMPR2 experience.

Jones D, Clayton E Genet Test Mol Biomarkers. 2011; 16(3):203-9.

PMID: 22085393 PMC: 3306587. DOI: 10.1089/gtmb.2011.0059.


Diversity and uniformity in genetic responsibility: moral attitudes of patients, relatives and lay people in Germany and Israel.

Raz A, Schicktanz S Med Health Care Philos. 2009; 12(4):433-42.

PMID: 19629747 PMC: 2777202. DOI: 10.1007/s11019-009-9215-x.


What patients and their relatives think about testing for BMPR2.

Jones D, Sandberg J, Rosenthal M, Saunders R, Hannig V, Clayton E J Genet Couns. 2008; 17(5):452-8.

PMID: 18791814 PMC: 3730255. DOI: 10.1007/s10897-008-9172-1.