Factors Influencing Discussion of Cancer Genetic Testing with Health-Care Providers in a Population-Based Survey.

IF 1.3 4区医学 Q4 GENETICS & HEREDITY Public Health Genomics Pub Date : 2021-01-01 Epub Date: 2021-04-22 DOI:10.1159/000515465

Sukh Makhnoon, Robert Yu, Sonia A Cunningham, Susan K Peterson, Sanjay Shete

{"title":"Factors Influencing Discussion of Cancer Genetic Testing with Health-Care Providers in a Population-Based Survey.","authors":"Sukh Makhnoon, Robert Yu, Sonia A Cunningham, Susan K Peterson, Sanjay Shete","doi":"10.1159/000515465","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Discussion of cancer genetic testing with health-care providers (HCPs) is necessary to undergo testing to inform cancer risk assessment and prevention. Given the rapid evolution in genetic testing practice in oncology, we describe the current landscape of population-level cancer genetic testing behaviors.Methods: A questionnaire including items regarding discussion of cancer genetic testing with HCPs was administered to a nonprobability sample (N = 2,029) of the Texas population.Results: Overall, 11% of respondents discussed cancer genetic testing with HCPs. In multivariable analysis, discussion was significantly related to having a personal history of breast/ovarian/colon cancer (OR = 11.57, 95% CI = 5.34-25.03), personal history of other cancer (OR = 3.18, 95% CI = 1.69-5.97), and health information-seeking behaviors (OR = 1.73, 95% CI = 1.12-2.66). Surprisingly, respondents who believed that inherited predispositions in addition to other modifiable risk factors cause cancer were less likely to discuss genetic testing compared to those who did not believe that inherited cancer predispositions cause cancer (OR = 0.54, 95% CI = 0.36-0.79).Discussion: The high discussion rate may be attributed to increased public awareness of genetic testing and adoption of more inclusive clinical genetic testing guidelines. The findings suggest that efforts to increase public awareness of the utility of genetic testing on personalized cancer risk assessment and cancer prevention are needed.","PeriodicalId":49650,"journal":{"name":"Public Health Genomics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1159/000515465","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Public Health Genomics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000515465","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/4/22 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"GENETICS & HEREDITY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 3

Abstract

Introduction: Discussion of cancer genetic testing with health-care providers (HCPs) is necessary to undergo testing to inform cancer risk assessment and prevention. Given the rapid evolution in genetic testing practice in oncology, we describe the current landscape of population-level cancer genetic testing behaviors.

Methods: A questionnaire including items regarding discussion of cancer genetic testing with HCPs was administered to a nonprobability sample (N = 2,029) of the Texas population.

Results: Overall, 11% of respondents discussed cancer genetic testing with HCPs. In multivariable analysis, discussion was significantly related to having a personal history of breast/ovarian/colon cancer (OR = 11.57, 95% CI = 5.34-25.03), personal history of other cancer (OR = 3.18, 95% CI = 1.69-5.97), and health information-seeking behaviors (OR = 1.73, 95% CI = 1.12-2.66). Surprisingly, respondents who believed that inherited predispositions in addition to other modifiable risk factors cause cancer were less likely to discuss genetic testing compared to those who did not believe that inherited cancer predispositions cause cancer (OR = 0.54, 95% CI = 0.36-0.79).

Discussion: The high discussion rate may be attributed to increased public awareness of genetic testing and adoption of more inclusive clinical genetic testing guidelines. The findings suggest that efforts to increase public awareness of the utility of genetic testing on personalized cancer risk assessment and cancer prevention are needed.

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

在一项基于人群的调查中，影响卫生保健提供者讨论癌症基因检测的因素。

导言:有必要与卫生保健提供者(HCPs)讨论癌症基因检测，以便进行检测，为癌症风险评估和预防提供信息。鉴于肿瘤基因检测实践的快速发展，我们描述了人口水平癌症基因检测行为的当前景观。方法:对德克萨斯州人口的非概率样本(N = 2029)进行问卷调查，其中包括与HCPs讨论癌症基因检测的项目。结果:总体而言，11%的受访者讨论了使用hcp进行癌症基因检测。在多变量分析中，讨论与乳腺癌/卵巢癌/结肠癌个人病史(OR = 11.57, 95% CI = 5.34-25.03)、其他癌症个人病史(OR = 3.18, 95% CI = 1.69-5.97)和健康信息寻求行为(OR = 1.73, 95% CI = 1.12-2.66)显著相关。令人惊讶的是，与那些不相信遗传癌症倾向会导致癌症的人相比，那些认为遗传易感性以及其他可改变的风险因素会导致癌症的受访者不太可能讨论基因检测(OR = 0.54, 95% CI = 0.36-0.79)。讨论:高讨论率可能归因于公众对基因检测的认识提高和采用更具包容性的临床基因检测指南。研究结果表明，需要努力提高公众对基因检测在个性化癌症风险评估和癌症预防方面的效用的认识。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文去求助

来源期刊

Public Health Genomics 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生

CiteScore

2.90

自引率

0.00%

发文量

审稿时长

>12 weeks

期刊介绍： ''Public Health Genomics'' is the leading international journal focusing on the timely translation of genome-based knowledge and technologies into public health, health policies, and healthcare as a whole. This peer-reviewed journal is a bimonthly forum featuring original papers, reviews, short communications, and policy statements. It is supplemented by topic-specific issues providing a comprehensive, holistic and ''all-inclusive'' picture of the chosen subject. Multidisciplinary in scope, it combines theoretical and empirical work from a range of disciplines, notably public health, molecular and medical sciences, the humanities and social sciences. In so doing, it also takes into account rapid scientific advances from fields such as systems biology, microbiomics, epigenomics or information and communication technologies as well as the hight potential of ''big data'' for public health.