Which Disease and Individual-Based Factors Predict Intentions to Undergo Whole Genome Sequencing?

Felicity Kiln¹, Alana Fisher^1,2, Ilona Juraskova^1,2

¹School of Psychology, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
²Centre for Medical Psychology and Evidence-Based Decision-Making (CeMPED), The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.

DOI: 10.4236/ijcm.2014.520159                

Abstract

Purpose: The past decade has seen rapid acceleration in the public’s access to Whole Genome Sequencing (WGS) technology, however, factors that may influence a person’s decision to undergo this complex health screening have received little empirical attention. This is the first psychosocial study to investigate which disease and individual-based factors predict intention to undergo WGS. Methods: A total of 164 first-year university students responded to hypothetical disease scenarios (varied by disease penetrance and treatment availability) and completed self-report measures of individual factors. Results: Intention to undergo WGS was significantly higher in the presence of available treatment and high disease penetrance (p < 0.05). There was also a significant interaction between treatment and disease penetrance on intention (p < 0.001). Task self-efficacy, positive outcome expectancy and attitude towards uncertainty all significantly predicted WGS intention (p < 0.05). Conclusions: Treatability and disease penetrance appear to be two distinct motivations that can also interact to influence intention to pursue WGS. Task self-efficacy, positive outcome expectancies and uncertainty avoidance are likely to motivate intention to pursue WGS in young healthy adults. These findings will be useful in informing the optimal design of WGS psycho-educational resources and screening provider protocols.

Keywords

Whole Genome Sequencing, Disease Penetrance, Treatment Availability, Psychological Factors, Theoretical Model

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	De Cristofaro, E. (2012) Whole Genome Sequencing: Innovation Dream or Privacy Nightmare? CoRR, 1-9.
[2]	Offit, K. (2011) Personalized Medicine: New Genomics, Old Lessons. Human Genetics, 130, 3-14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00439-011-1028-3
[3]	Moorthie, S., Hall, A. and Wright, C.F. (2013) Informatics and Clinical Genome Sequencing: Opening the Black Box. Genetics in Medicine, 15, 165-171. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/gim.2012.116
[4]	Fisher, A., Bonner, C., Biankin, A.V. and Juraskova, I. (2012) Factors Influencing Intention to Undergo Whole Genome Screening in Future Healthcare: A Single-Blind Parallel-Group Randomised Trial. Preventive Medicine, 55, 514-520. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2012.08.008
[5]	Frost, S., Myers, L.B. and Newman, S.P. (2001) Genetic Screening for Alzheimer’s Disease: What Factors Predict Intentions to Take a Test? Behavioral Medicine, 27, 101-109. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08964280109595776
[6]	Wolff, K., Nordin, K., Brun, W., Berglund, G. and Kvale, G. (2011) Affective and Cognitive Attitudes, Uncertainty Avoidance and Intention to Obtain Genetic Testing: An Extension of the Theory of Planned Behaviour. Psychology & Health, 26, 1143-1155. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08870441003763253
[7]	Shaw, J.S., and Bassi, K.L. (2001) Lay Attitudes toward Genetic Testing for Susceptibility to Inherited Diseases. Journal of Health Psychology, 6, 405-423. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/135910530100600404
[8]	Roberts, J.S. (2000) Anticipating Response to Predictive Genetic Testing for Alzheimer’s Disease: A Survey of First-Degree Relatives. The Gerontologist, 40, 43-52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/geront/40.1.43
[9]	Schwarzer, R. and Luszczynska, A. (2008) How to Overcome Health-Compromising Behaviors: The Health Action Process Approach. European Psychologist, 13, 141-151. http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040.13.2.141
[10]	Schwarzer, R. (2008) Modeling Health Behavior Change: How to Predict and Modify the Adoption and Maintenance of Health Behaviors. Applied Psychology, 57, 1-29.
[11]	Scholz, U., Keller, R. and Perren, S. (2009) Predicting Behavioral Intentions and Physical Exercise: A Test of the Health Action Process Approach at the Intrapersonal Level. Health Psychology, 28, 702-708. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0016088
[12]	Bunn, J.Y., Bosompra, K., Ashikaga, T., Flynn, B.S. and Worden, J.K. (2002) Factors Influencing Intention to Obtain a Genetic Test for Colon Cancer Risk: A Population-Based Study. Preventive Medicine, 34, 567-577. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/pmed.2002.1031
[13]	Schwarzer, R. and Renner, B. (2000) Social-Cognitive Predictors of Health Behavior: Action Self-Efficacy and Coping Self-Efficacy. Health Psychology, 19, 487-495. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.19.5.487
[14]	Schwarzer, R. (1992) Self-Efficacy in the Adoption and Maintenance of Health Behaviours: Theoretical Approaches to a New Model. In: Schwarzer, R., Ed., Self-Efficacy: Thought Control of Action, Hemisphere Publishing, Washington DC, 217-242.
[15]	Braithwaite, D., Sutton, S. and Steggles, N. (2002) Intention to Participate in Predictive Genetic Testing for Hereditary Cancer: The Role of Attitude toward Uncertainty. Psychology & Health, 17, 761-772. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0887044021000054764
[16]	Cameron, L.D. and Diefenbach, M.A. (2001) Responses to Information about Psychosocial Consequences of Genetic Testing for Breast Cancer Susceptibility: In-fluences of Cancer Worry and Risk Perceptions. Journal of Health Psychology, 6, 47-59. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/135910530100600104
[17]	Mackert, M., Rew, L., Bonevac, D. and Champlin, S. (2012) Older Adolescents’ Perceptions and Intentions Regarding Do-It-Yourself Genetic Assessment Services. Journal for Specialists in Pediatric Nursing, 17, 159-167.
[18]	IBM Corporation (2010) Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) for Macintosh [Computer Program]. Version 19.0. Armonk.
[19]	Tabachnick, B.G. and Fidell, L.S. (2007) Using Multivariate Statistics. 5th Edition, Pearson Education Limited, Upper Saddle River.
[20]	Lerman, C., Croyle, R.T., Tercyak, K.P. and Hamann, H. (2002) Genetic Testing: Psychological Aspects and Implications. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 70, 784-797. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.70.3.784
[21]	Cameron, L.D. and Reeve, J. (2006) Risk Perceptions, Worry, and Attitudes about Genetic Testing for Breast Cancer Susceptibility. Psychology & Health, 21, 211-230. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14768320500230318
[22]	Schwarzer, R., Lippke, S. and Luszczynska, A. (2011) Mechanisms of Health Behavior Change in Persons with Chronic Illness or Disability: The Health Action Process Approach (HAPA). Rehabilitation Psychology, 56, 161-170. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0024509
[23]	Wade, C.H., Shiloh, S., Woolford, S.W., Roberts, J.S., Alford, S.H., Marteau, T.M. and Biesecker, B.B. (2012) Modelling Decisions to Undergo Genetic Testing for Susceptibility to Common Health Conditions: An Ancillary Study of the Multiplex Initiative. Psychology & Health, 27, 430-444. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08870446.2011.586699
[24]	Croyle, R.T., Dutson, D.S., Tran, V.T. and Sun, Y.C. (1995) Need for Certainty and Interest in Genetic Testing. Women’s Health: Research on Gender, Behavior and Policy, 1, 329-339.
[25]	Sweeny, K. and Legg, A.M. (2011) Predictors of Interest in Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing. Psychology & Health, 26, 1259-1272. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08870446.2010.514607
[26]	Joseph-Williams, N., Edwards, A. and Elwyn, G. (2011) The Importance and Complexity of Regret in the Measurement of “Good” Decisions: A Systematic Review and a Content Analysis of Existing Assessment Instruments. Health Expectations, 14, 59-83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1369-7625.2010.00621.x
[27]	McBride, C.M., Koehly, L.M., Sanderson, S.C. and Kaphingst, K.A. (2010) The Behavioral Response to Personalized Genetic Information: Will Genetic Risk Profiles Motivate Individuals and Families to Choose More Healthful Behaviors? Annual Review of Public Health, 31, 89-103. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.012809.103532
[28]	Binedell, J. and Soldan, J.R. (1997) Nonparticipation in Huntington’s Disease Predictive Testing: Reasons for Caution in Interpreting Findings. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 6, 419-432. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1025601010891
[29]	Grosse, S.D., McBride, C.M., Evans, J.P. and Khoury, M.J. (2009) Personal Utility and Genomic Information: Look before You Leap. Genetics in Medicine, 11, 575-576. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/GIM.0b013e3181af0a80
[30]	Iredale, R., Rapport, F., Sivell, S., Jones, W., Edwards, A., Gray, J. and Elwyn, G. (2008) Exploring the Requirements for a Decision Aid on Familial Breast Cancer in the UK Context: A Qualitative Study with Patients Referred to a Cancer Genetics Service. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 14, 110-115. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2753.2007.00811.x
[31]	Kuehn, B.M. (2008) Risks and Benefits of Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing Remain Unclear. Journal of the American Medical Association, 300, 1503-1505. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.300.13.1503
[32]	Leighton, J.W., Valverde, K. and Bernhardt, B.A. (2011) The General Public’s Understanding and Perception of Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Test Results. Public Health Genomics, 15, 11-21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000327159