Interaction of genetic counselors with molecular genetic testing laboratories: Implications for non-geneticist health care providers

2003 ◽  
Vol 119A (3) ◽  
pp. 297-301 ◽  
Author(s):  
Margaret M. McGovern ◽  
Marta Benach ◽  
Randi Zinberg
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Genetic Testing ◽  
Health Care Providers ◽  
Molecular Genetic ◽  
Genetic Counselors ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Molecular Genetic Testing ◽  
Testing Laboratories

Impact of Health Perception and Knowledge on Genetic Testing Decisions Using the Health Belief Model

2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Safa Elkefi ◽  
Avishek Choudhury ◽  
Olga Strachna ◽  
Onur Asan
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Genetic Testing ◽  
Cancer Risk ◽  
Health Belief Model ◽  
Health Care Providers ◽  
Health Belief ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Cancer History ◽  
Belief Model ◽  
The Health Belief Model

PURPOSE Early detection of cancer risk is essential as it is associated with a higher chance of survival, more successful treatment, and improved quality of life. Genetic testing helps at-risk patients estimate the likelihood of developing cancer in a lifetime. This study aims to indentify the factors (perceived susceptibility, severity, benefits, and self-efficacy) that impact one's decision to take the genetic test. METHODS We examined the impacts of different factors of the health belief model on the engagement of patients in genetic testing using data from the National Cancer Institute's 2020 cross-sectional nationally representative data published in 2021. Complete surveys were answered by 3,865 participants (weighted population size = 253,815,197). All estimates were weighted to be nationally representative of the US population using the jackknife weighting method for parameter estimation. We used multivariable logistic regression to test our hypotheses for patients who have taken the genetic test for cancer risk detection. We adjusted the multivariate model for age, education, income, race, sex, cancer history, familial cancer history, and education. RESULTS We tested five hypotheses using the health belief model. Respondents who had genetic testing were more likely to rely on their health care providers and genetic counselors to make their decisions. Respondents who had genetic tests also reported less reliability on other sources than doctors: for the internet and social media (odds ratio = 0.33; P < .001) and for journals and magazines (odds ratio = 0.48; P = .007). CONCLUSION The findings show that patients generally rely on suggestions from their health care providers and counselors in genetic testing decisions. These findings also indicate that health care providers play a critical role in helping patients decide whether to use genetic testing to detect cancer risk in the early stages.

Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing

2012 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 35-67 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard A. Stein
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Genetic Testing ◽  
Health Care Providers ◽  
Double Helix ◽  
Health Care Facilities ◽  
Past Century ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Genetic Tests ◽  
Direct To Consumer ◽  
Dna Double Helix

Genetics has fascinated societies since ancient times, and references to traits or behaviors that appear to be shared or different among related individuals have permeated legends, literature, and popular culture. Biomedical advances from the past century, and particularly the discovery of the DNA double helix, the increasing numbers of links that were established between mutations and medical conditions or phenotypes, and technological advances that facilitated the sequencing of the human genome, catalyzed the development of genetic testing. Genetic tests were initially performed in health care facilities, interpreted by health care providers, and included the availability of counseling. Recent years have seen an increased availability of genetic tests that are offered by companies directly to consumers, a phenomenon that became known as direct-to-consumer genetic testing. Tests offered in this setting range from the ones that are also provided in health care establishments to tests known as ‘recreational genomics,’ and consumers directly receive the test results. In addition, testing in this context often does not involve the availability of counseling and, when this is provided, it frequently occurs on-line or over the phone. As a field situated at the interface between biotechnology, biomedical research, and social sciences, direct-to-consumer genetic testing opens multiple challenges that can be appropriately addressed only by developing a complex, inter-disciplinary framework.

The State of Genomic Health Care and Cancer Are We Going Two Steps Forward and One Step Backward?

2011 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 73-97 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karen E. Greco ◽  
Suzanne M. Mahon
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Genetic Testing ◽  
Health Care Providers ◽  
The State ◽  
Access To Information ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Genomic Information ◽  
Genetic Tests ◽  
Common Diseases ◽  
One Step

As the application of genomic information and technology crosses the horizon of health care into our everyday lives, expanding genomic knowledge continues to affect how health care services are defined and delivered. Genomic discoveries have led to enhanced clinical capabilities to predict susceptibility to common diseases and conditions such as cancer, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and Alzheimer's disease. Hundreds of genetic tests are now available that can identify individuals who carry one or more gene mutations that increase their risk of developing cancer or other common diseases. Increased availability and directto-consumer marketing of genetic testing is moving genetic testing away from trained genetics health professionals and into the hands of primary care providers and consumers. Genetic tests available on the Internet are being directly marketed to individuals, who can order these tests and receive a report of their risk for numerous health conditions and diseases. Health care providers are expected to interpret these test results, evaluate their accuracy, address the psychosocial consequences of those distressed by receiving their results, and translate genomic information into effective care. However, as we move two steps forward, we are also moving one step backward because many health care providers are unprepared for this genomic revolution. A number of international education, practice, and policy efforts are underway to address the challenges health care providers face in providing competent genomic health care in the context of unprecedented access to information, technology, and global communication. Efforts to integrate standard of care guidelines into electronic medical records increases health care providers' access to information for individuals at risk for or diagnosed with a genomic condition. Development of genomic competencies for health care providers has led to increased genomic content in academic programs. These and other efforts will keep the state of genomic health care stepping forward as we face the challenges of health care in the genomic era.

scholarly journals Quality assurance practices in Europe: a survey of molecular genetic testing laboratories

2012 ◽  
Vol 20 (11) ◽  
pp. 1118-1126 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah Berwouts ◽  
Katrina Fanning ◽  
Michael A Morris ◽  
David E Barton ◽  
Elisabeth Dequeker
Keyword(s):  
Quality Assurance ◽  
Genetic Testing ◽  
Molecular Genetic ◽  
Molecular Genetic Testing ◽  
Testing Laboratories

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

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-11
Author(s):  
Sukh Makhnoon ◽  
Robert Yu ◽  
Sonia A. Cunningham ◽  
Susan K. Peterson ◽  
Sanjay Shete
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Genetic Testing ◽  
Health Care Providers ◽  
Public Awareness ◽  
Personal History ◽  
Cancer Risk Assessment ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Cancer Genetic ◽  
History Of

<b><i>Introduction:</i></b> 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. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> A questionnaire including items regarding discussion of cancer genetic testing with HCPs was administered to a nonprobability sample (<i>N</i> = 2,029) of the Texas population. <b><i>Results:</i></b> 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). <b><i>Discussion:</i></b> 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.

Genetic Services, Economics, and Eugenics

1998 ◽  
Vol 11 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 481-491 ◽  
Author(s):  
Diane B. Paul
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Genetic Testing ◽  
Health Care Providers ◽  
Genetic Disease ◽  
Economic Cost ◽  
Genetic Services ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Contested Meanings ◽  
The Impact

The ArgumentWhat are the aims of genetic services? Do any of these aims deserve to be labeled “eugenics”? Answers to these strenuously debated questions depend not just on the facts about genetic testing and screening but also on what is understood by “eugenics,” a term with multiple and contested meanings. This paper explores the impact of efforts to label genetic services “eugenics” and argues that attempts to protect against the charge have seriously distorted discussion about their purpose(s). Following Ruth Chadwick, I argue that the existence of genetic services presupposes that genetic disease is undesirable and that means should be offered to reduce it. I further argue that the economic cost of such disease is one reason why governments and health care providers deem such services worthwhile. The important question is not whether such cost considerations constitute “eugenics,” but whether they foster practices that are undesirable and, if so, what to do about them. The wielding of the term “eugenics” as a weapon in a war over the expansion of genetic services, conjoined with efforts to dissociate such services from the abortion controversy, has produced a rhetoric about the aims of these services that is increasingly divorced from reality. Candor about these aims is a sine qua non of any useful debate over the legitimacy of the methods used to advance them.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document