Public perceptions of disease severity but not actionability correlate with interest in receiving genomic results: Nonalignment with current trends in practice

Kristi D. Graves, Pamela S. Sinicrope, Jennifer McCormick, Yingjun Zhou, Susan T. Vadaparampil, Noralane M. Lindor

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

12 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: Frameworks highlighting disease actionability and severity are evolving to address the need to organize results from genome-wide analyses. This approach represents a paradigm shift from consultations focused on one or more genes to multiple genes for multiple disorders. Empirical input from the general population is lacking, yet seems essential for understanding how to maximize patient autonomy and satisfaction in the decision-making process. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional online survey with a representative sample of 900 US adults and assessed the participants' perceptions and attitudes toward disease actionability and severity, ranking hypothetical scenarios for these properties, and explored correlations with interest in learning test results. Results: Most respondents (>85%) rated actionability and severity as useful concepts; 46.6% indicated actionability alone would be adequate for decision making. Over half of them (53.8%) reported being very/extremely confident in their ability to score for actionability and severity. The participants' scoring of medical scenarios varied significantly between individuals. Scores for severity but not actionability were correlated with interest in learning genetic results. Subsets of the respondents projected wanting all results (30%) or no results (16%). The use of expert-created lists was acceptable to 43%. Conclusions: The respondents from the general population were confident in making their own decisions. The responses suggested different priorities than current expert-driven approaches. The emphasis on binning genes may be missing a complementary, simplifying approach of grouping patients based upon their all/none interest in genomic results. This study illuminates important differences between the general public and genetic experts.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)173-183
Number of pages11
JournalPublic health genomics
Volume18
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 24 2015

Fingerprint

Decision Making
Learning
Genes
Aptitude
Patient Satisfaction
Population
Referral and Consultation
Cross-Sectional Studies
Genome
Surveys and Questionnaires

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
  • Genetics(clinical)

Cite this

Graves, Kristi D. ; Sinicrope, Pamela S. ; McCormick, Jennifer ; Zhou, Yingjun ; Vadaparampil, Susan T. ; Lindor, Noralane M. / Public perceptions of disease severity but not actionability correlate with interest in receiving genomic results : Nonalignment with current trends in practice. In: Public health genomics. 2015 ; Vol. 18, No. 3. pp. 173-183.
@article{7a1a05ac96d740be8ef3efb0e28dae57,
title = "Public perceptions of disease severity but not actionability correlate with interest in receiving genomic results: Nonalignment with current trends in practice",
abstract = "Purpose: Frameworks highlighting disease actionability and severity are evolving to address the need to organize results from genome-wide analyses. This approach represents a paradigm shift from consultations focused on one or more genes to multiple genes for multiple disorders. Empirical input from the general population is lacking, yet seems essential for understanding how to maximize patient autonomy and satisfaction in the decision-making process. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional online survey with a representative sample of 900 US adults and assessed the participants' perceptions and attitudes toward disease actionability and severity, ranking hypothetical scenarios for these properties, and explored correlations with interest in learning test results. Results: Most respondents (>85{\%}) rated actionability and severity as useful concepts; 46.6{\%} indicated actionability alone would be adequate for decision making. Over half of them (53.8{\%}) reported being very/extremely confident in their ability to score for actionability and severity. The participants' scoring of medical scenarios varied significantly between individuals. Scores for severity but not actionability were correlated with interest in learning genetic results. Subsets of the respondents projected wanting all results (30{\%}) or no results (16{\%}). The use of expert-created lists was acceptable to 43{\%}. Conclusions: The respondents from the general population were confident in making their own decisions. The responses suggested different priorities than current expert-driven approaches. The emphasis on binning genes may be missing a complementary, simplifying approach of grouping patients based upon their all/none interest in genomic results. This study illuminates important differences between the general public and genetic experts.",
author = "Graves, {Kristi D.} and Sinicrope, {Pamela S.} and Jennifer McCormick and Yingjun Zhou and Vadaparampil, {Susan T.} and Lindor, {Noralane M.}",
year = "2015",
month = "4",
day = "24",
doi = "10.1159/000375479",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "18",
pages = "173--183",
journal = "Public Health Genomics",
issn = "1662-4246",
publisher = "S. Karger AG",
number = "3",

}

Public perceptions of disease severity but not actionability correlate with interest in receiving genomic results : Nonalignment with current trends in practice. / Graves, Kristi D.; Sinicrope, Pamela S.; McCormick, Jennifer; Zhou, Yingjun; Vadaparampil, Susan T.; Lindor, Noralane M.

In: Public health genomics, Vol. 18, No. 3, 24.04.2015, p. 173-183.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Public perceptions of disease severity but not actionability correlate with interest in receiving genomic results

T2 - Nonalignment with current trends in practice

AU - Graves, Kristi D.

AU - Sinicrope, Pamela S.

AU - McCormick, Jennifer

AU - Zhou, Yingjun

AU - Vadaparampil, Susan T.

AU - Lindor, Noralane M.

PY - 2015/4/24

Y1 - 2015/4/24

N2 - Purpose: Frameworks highlighting disease actionability and severity are evolving to address the need to organize results from genome-wide analyses. This approach represents a paradigm shift from consultations focused on one or more genes to multiple genes for multiple disorders. Empirical input from the general population is lacking, yet seems essential for understanding how to maximize patient autonomy and satisfaction in the decision-making process. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional online survey with a representative sample of 900 US adults and assessed the participants' perceptions and attitudes toward disease actionability and severity, ranking hypothetical scenarios for these properties, and explored correlations with interest in learning test results. Results: Most respondents (>85%) rated actionability and severity as useful concepts; 46.6% indicated actionability alone would be adequate for decision making. Over half of them (53.8%) reported being very/extremely confident in their ability to score for actionability and severity. The participants' scoring of medical scenarios varied significantly between individuals. Scores for severity but not actionability were correlated with interest in learning genetic results. Subsets of the respondents projected wanting all results (30%) or no results (16%). The use of expert-created lists was acceptable to 43%. Conclusions: The respondents from the general population were confident in making their own decisions. The responses suggested different priorities than current expert-driven approaches. The emphasis on binning genes may be missing a complementary, simplifying approach of grouping patients based upon their all/none interest in genomic results. This study illuminates important differences between the general public and genetic experts.

AB - Purpose: Frameworks highlighting disease actionability and severity are evolving to address the need to organize results from genome-wide analyses. This approach represents a paradigm shift from consultations focused on one or more genes to multiple genes for multiple disorders. Empirical input from the general population is lacking, yet seems essential for understanding how to maximize patient autonomy and satisfaction in the decision-making process. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional online survey with a representative sample of 900 US adults and assessed the participants' perceptions and attitudes toward disease actionability and severity, ranking hypothetical scenarios for these properties, and explored correlations with interest in learning test results. Results: Most respondents (>85%) rated actionability and severity as useful concepts; 46.6% indicated actionability alone would be adequate for decision making. Over half of them (53.8%) reported being very/extremely confident in their ability to score for actionability and severity. The participants' scoring of medical scenarios varied significantly between individuals. Scores for severity but not actionability were correlated with interest in learning genetic results. Subsets of the respondents projected wanting all results (30%) or no results (16%). The use of expert-created lists was acceptable to 43%. Conclusions: The respondents from the general population were confident in making their own decisions. The responses suggested different priorities than current expert-driven approaches. The emphasis on binning genes may be missing a complementary, simplifying approach of grouping patients based upon their all/none interest in genomic results. This study illuminates important differences between the general public and genetic experts.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84928621753&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84928621753&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1159/000375479

DO - 10.1159/000375479

M3 - Article

C2 - 25790929

AN - SCOPUS:84928621753

VL - 18

SP - 173

EP - 183

JO - Public Health Genomics

JF - Public Health Genomics

SN - 1662-4246

IS - 3

ER -