Impact of public exhibition on the perception of birthmarks.

BACKGROUND: The importance of photographs in social media, the steep rise in popularity of tattoos, and the prominence of individuals with visibly different skin in fashion are likely to be changing the landscape of self- and public perception of birthmarks. Study objectives were to assess the impact of a photoshoot and public exhibition on the self-perception of individuals with extensive birthmarks, and to explore the viewing public's reactions. METHODS: Thirty individuals with congenital melanocytic nevi (CMN) were recruited internationally. Each had a professional photoshoot portrait with their skin exposed, resulting in a public exhibition in London entitled "How do you C Me Now?" Participants/parents completed pre- and post-questionnaires relating to self-perception and the impact of their birthmarks on behavior. Over 8000 members of the public viewed the exhibition, 464 completing an on-site questionnaire on its effects. RESULTS: All participants/parents rated the experience as positive, valuable and helpful. Scores on self-appreciation and self-confidence were significantly higher after the photo shoot. Members of the general public overwhelmingly reported the exhibition increased their positive feelings towards people with birthmarks. The majority of public respondents also reported that the exhibition made them feel better about their own skin and about their looks in general. CONCLUSION: This unique exhibition and the associated research has provided a striking new perspective on potential psychological interventions for individuals with birthmarks.

Participant experiences of genome sequencing for rare diseases in the 100,000 Genomes Project: a mixed methods study.

In this mixed methods study, a survey and in-depth interviews were used to explore whether decision regret and the psychological impact of receiving genome sequencing (GS) results differed between parents and patients, and between those who received a genetic diagnosis and those who did not. Participants (n = 77) completed a survey that included the Decisional Regret Scale (DRS) and an adaptation of the Multidimensional Impact of Cancer Risk Assessment (MICRA) at least 12 months after consenting for GS for rare disease diagnosis in the 100,000 Genomes Project. Survey participants were invited to take part in an interview and 39 agreed; 12 with a diagnosis, 5 with variants of uncertain significance, and 19 with no pathogenic findings identified. Both survey and interview findings indicated that decision regret was low. DRS scores revealed no differences in levels of regret between parents and patients, or between those with a diagnosis and those without. Though MICRA scores indicated minimal evidence of negative psychological impacts of receiving GS results, subscale analysis revealed greater distress and uncertainty for parents compared to patients. Receiving a diagnosis was found not to influence MICRA scores, supporting interview findings of both positive and negative emotional and psychological impacts irrespective of a genetic diagnosis. Our findings have implications for policy and practice as GS is integrated into the UK and worldwide; notably, that expectation-setting is critical when offering GS, and that post-test counselling is important regardless of the GS result received, with parents perhaps needing additional emotional support.

Mixed-methods evaluation of the NHS Genomic Medicine Service for paediatric rare diseases: study protocol.

Background: A new nationally commissioned NHS England Genomic Medicine Service (GMS) was recently established to deliver genomic testing with equity of access for patients affected by rare diseases and cancer. The overarching aim of this research is to evaluate the implementation of the GMS during its early years, identify barriers and enablers to successful implementation, and provide recommendations for practice. The focus will be on the use of genomic testing for paediatric rare diseases. Methods: This will be a four-year mixed-methods research programme using clinic observations, interviews and surveys. Study 1 consists of qualitative interviews with designers/implementers of the GMS in Year 1 of the research programme, along with documentary analysis to understand the intended outcomes for the Service. These will be revisited in Year 4 to compare intended outcomes with what happened in practice, and to identify barriers and facilitators that were encountered along the way. Study 2 consists of clinic observations (pre-test counselling and results disclosure) to examine the interaction between health professionals and parents, along with follow-up interviews with both after each observation. Study 3 consists of a longitudinal survey with parents at two timepoints (time of testing and 12 months post-results) along with follow-up interviews, to examine parent-reported experiences and outcomes. Study 4 consists of qualitative interviews and a cross-sectional survey with medical specialists to identify preparedness, facilitators and challenges to mainstreaming genomic testing. The use of theory-based and pre-specified constructs will help generalise the findings and enable integration across the various sub-studies. Dissemination: We will disseminate our results to policymakers as findings emerge, so any suggested changes to service provision can be considered in a timely manner. A workshop with key stakeholders will be held in Year 4 to develop and agree a set of recommendations for practice.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Genome sequencing (where a person's entire genetic code is mapped) is set to dramatically transform patient care and medical outcomes. Recently, genome sequencing was introduced as part of routine clinical care in the NHS, through the Genomic Medicine Service (GMS). The aim of this research is to understand how genome sequencing is being delivered in the first few years of the Service, in particular what the barriers and enablers are to successful delivery. The focus of the study will be the use of genome sequencing for children with undiagnosed conditions. STUDY DESIGN: This is a four-year study in which we will conduct: observations of clinic appointments; interviews with policy makers and health professionals designing and implementing the new service; and surveys/interviews with parents of patients undergoing genomic testing. By the end of this study we will have: - a better understanding of the intended vs actual outcomes of the GMS,- insights into what happens during clinical encounters,- understand what the entire testing process is like for parents from being offered genomic testing to receiving their results and beyond, including the clinical as well as emotional and practical outcomes, and- understand how healthcare professionals feel about delivering the GMS, particularly those that are non-genetic specialists, including how prepared they feel to deliver genomic testing. Patient and public involvement: Parents of children who have been through the testing process have helped us design this study. They have inputted into surveys and topic guides, and will be involved throughout the study as members of the advisory team so that we can ensure the findings are used to improve the quality of care patients and families receive. DISSEMINATION: The findings from this research will be shared with organisations such as NHS England and NHS Improvement so that recommendations can be implemented swiftly.

Attitudes towards risk-stratified breast cancer screening among women in England: A cross-sectional survey.

OBJECTIVES: Risk stratification may improve the benefit/harm ratio of breast screening. Research on acceptability among potential invitees is necessary to guide implementation. We assessed women's attitudes towards and willingness to undergo risk assessment and stratified screening. METHODS: Women in England aged 40-70 received summary information about the topic, and completed face-to-face computer-assisted interviews. Questions assessed willingness to undergo multifactorial breast cancer risk assessment, more frequent breast screening (if at very high risk), or less frequent or no screening (if at very low risk), and preferences for delivery of assessment results. RESULTS: Among 933 women, 85% considered breast cancer risk assessment a good idea, and 74% were willing to have it. Among 125 women unwilling to have risk assessment, reasons commonly related to 'worry' (14%) and 'preferring not to know' (14%). Among those willing to have risk assessment (n = 689), letters/emails were generally preferred (42%) for results about very low-risk status. Face-to-face communication was most commonly preferred for results of very high-risk status (78%). General practitioners were most commonly preferred sources of assessment results (≈40%). Breast cancer specialists were often preferred for results of very high-risk status (38%). Risk-stratified breast screening was considered a good idea by 70% and 89% were willing to have more frequent screening. Fewer would accept less (51%) or no screening (37%) if at very low risk. CONCLUSIONS: Women were generally in favour of multifactorial breast cancer risk assessment and risk-stratified screening. Some were unwilling to accept less or no screening if at very low risk.

Delivering genome sequencing in clinical practice: an interview study with healthcare professionals involved in the 100 000 Genomes Project.

OBJECTIVES: Genome sequencing is poised to be incorporated into clinical care for diagnoses of rare diseases and some cancers in many parts of the world. Healthcare professionals are key stakeholders in the clinical delivery of genome sequencing-based services. Our aim was to explore views of healthcare professionals with experience of offering genome sequencing via the 100 000 Genomes Project. DESIGN: Interview study using thematic analysis. SETTING: Four National Health Service hospitals in London. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-three healthcare professionals (five genetic clinicians and eight non-genetic clinicians (all consultants), and 10 'consenters' from a range of backgrounds) involved in identifying or consenting patients for the 100 000 Genomes Project. RESULTS: Most participants expressed positive attitudes towards genome sequencing in terms of improved ability to diagnose rare diseases, but many also expressed concerns, with some believing its superiority over exome sequencing had not yet been demonstrated, or worrying that non-genetic clinicians are inadequately prepared to discuss genome sequencing results with patients. Several emphasised additional evidence about utility of genome sequencing in terms of both main and secondary findings is needed. Most felt non-genetic clinicians could support patients during consent, as long as they have appropriate training and support from genetic teams. Many stated genetics experts will play a vital role in training and supporting non-genetic clinicians in variant interpretation and results delivery, particularly for more complex cases. CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare professionals responsible for delivering clinical genome sequencing have largely positive views about the potential for genome sequencing to improve diagnostic yield, but also significant concerns about practical aspects of offering these tests. Non-genetic clinicians delivering genome sequencing require guidance and support. Additional empirical evidence is needed to inform policy and practice, including how genome compares to exome sequencing; utility of secondary findings; training, in particular of non-genetic health professionals; and mechanisms whereby genetics teams can offer appropriate support to their non-genetics colleagues.

Attitudes towards a programme of risk assessment and stratified management for ovarian cancer: a focus group study of UK South Asians' perspectives.

OBJECTIVE: Population-based risk assessment, using genetic testing and the provision of appropriate risk management, could lead to prevention, early detection and improved clinical management of ovarian cancer (OC). Previous research with mostly white British participants found positive attitudes towards such a programme. The current study aimed to explore the attitudes of South Asian (SA) women and men in the UK with the aim of identifying how best to implement such a programme to minimise distress and maximise uptake. DESIGN: Semistructured qualitative focus group discussions. SETTING: Community centres across North London and Luton. PARTICIPANTS: 49 women and 13 men who identified as SA (Indian, Pakistani or Bangladeshi), which constitutes the largest non-European ethnic minority group in the UK. METHODS: Seven community-based focus groups were held. Group discussions were transcribed verbatim, coded and analysed thematically. RESULTS: Awareness and knowledge of OC symptoms and specific risk factors was low. The programme was acceptable to most participants and attitudes to it were generally positive. Participants' main concerns related to receiving a high-risk result following the genetic test. Younger women may be more cautious of genetic testing, screening or risk-reducing surgery due to the importance of marriage and childbearing in their SA cultures. CONCLUSIONS: A crucial first step to enable implementation of population-based genetic risk assessment and management in OC is to raise awareness of OC within SA communities. It will be important to engage with the SA community early on in programme implementation to address their specific concerns and to ensure culturally tailored decision support.

Health care professionals' attitudes towards population-based genetic testing and risk-stratification for ovarian cancer: a cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: Ovarian cancer is usually diagnosed at a late stage when outcomes are poor. Personalised ovarian cancer risk prediction, based on genetic and epidemiological information and risk stratified management in adult women could improve outcomes. Examining health care professionals' (HCP) attitudes to ovarian cancer risk stratified management, willingness to support women, self-efficacy (belief in one's own ability to successfully complete a task), and knowledge about ovarian cancer will help identify training needs in anticipation of personalised ovarian cancer risk prediction being introduced. METHODS: An anonymous survey was distributed online to HCPs via relevant professional organisations in the UK. Kruskal-Wallis tests and pairwise comparisons were used to compare knowledge and self-efficacy scores between different types of HCPs, and attitudes toward population-based genetic testing and risk stratified management were described. Content analysis was undertaken of free text responses concerning HCPs willingness to discuss risk management options with women. RESULTS: One hundred forty-six eligible HCPs completed the survey: oncologists (31%); genetics clinicians (30%); general practitioners (22%); gynaecologists (10%); nurses (4%); and 'others'. Scores for knowledge of ovarian cancer and genetics, and self-efficacy in conducting a cancer risk consultation were generally high but significantly lower for general practitioners compared to genetics clinicians, oncologists, and gynaecologists. Support for population-based genetic testing was not high (<50%). Attitudes towards ovarian cancer risk stratification were mixed, although the majority of participants indicated a willingness to discuss management options with patients. CONCLUSIONS: Larger samples are required to investigate attitudes to population-based genetic testing for ovarian cancer risk and to establish why some HCPs are hesitant to offer testing to all adult female patients. If ovarian cancer risk assessment using genetic testing and non-genetic information including epidemiological information is rolled out on a population basis, training will be needed for HCPs in primary care to enable them to provide appropriate support to women at each stage of the process.

Impact of a decision aid about stratified ovarian cancer risk-management on women's knowledge and intentions: a randomised online experimental survey study.

BACKGROUND: Risk stratification using genetic and other types of personal information could improve current best available approaches to ovarian cancer risk reduction, improving identification of women at increased risk of ovarian cancer and reducing unnecessary interventions for women at lower risk. Amounts of information given to women may influence key informed decision-related outcomes, e.g. knowledge. The primary aim of this study was to compare informed decision-related outcomes between women given one of two versions (gist vs. extended) of a decision aid about stratified ovarian cancer risk-management. METHODS: This was an experimental survey study comparing the effects of brief (gist) information with lengthier, more detailed (extended) information on cognitions relevant to informed decision-making about participating in risk-stratified ovarian cancer screening. Women with no personal history of ovarian cancer were recruited through an online survey company and randomised to view the gist (n = 512) or extended (n = 519) version of a website-based decision aid and completed an online survey. Primary outcomes were knowledge and intentions. Secondary outcomes included attitudes (values) and decisional conflict. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the gist and extended conditions in knowledge about ovarian cancer (time*group interaction: F = 0.20, p = 0.66) or intention to participate in ovarian cancer screening based on genetic risk assessment (t(1029) = 0.43, p = 0.67). There were also no between-groups differences in secondary outcomes. In the sample overall (n = 1031), knowledge about ovarian cancer increased from before to after exposure to the decision aid (from 5.71 to 6.77 out of a possible 10: t = 19.04, p < 0.001), and 74% of participants said that they would participate in ovarian cancer screening based on genetic risk assessment. CONCLUSIONS: No differences in knowledge or intentions were found between women who viewed the gist version and women who viewed the extended version of a decision aid about risk-stratified ovarian cancer screening. Knowledge increased for women in both decision aid groups. Further research is needed to determine the ideal volume and type of content for decision aids about stratified ovarian cancer risk-management. TRIAL REGISTRATIONS: This study was registered with the ISRCTN registry; registration number: ISRCTN48627877 .

Awareness, knowledge, perceptions, and attitudes towards genetic testing for cancer risk among ethnic minority groups: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Genetic testing for risk of hereditary cancer can help patients to make important decisions about prevention or early detection. US and UK studies show that people from ethnic minority groups are less likely to receive genetic testing. It is important to understand various groups' awareness of genetic testing and its acceptability to avoid further disparities in health care. This review aims to identify and detail awareness, knowledge, perceptions, and attitudes towards genetic counselling/testing for cancer risk prediction in ethnic minority groups. METHODS: A search was carried out in PsycInfo, CINAHL, Embase and MEDLINE. Search terms referred to ethnicity, genetic testing/counselling, cancer, awareness, knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions. Quantitative and qualitative studies, written in English, and published between 2000 and 2015, were included. RESULTS: Forty-one studies were selected for review: 39 from the US, and two from Australia. Results revealed low awareness and knowledge of genetic counselling/testing for cancer susceptibility amongst ethnic minority groups including African Americans, Asian Americans, and Hispanics. Attitudes towards genetic testing were generally positive; perceived benefits included positive implications for personal health and being able to inform family. However, negative attitudes were also evident, particularly the anticipated emotional impact of test results, and concerns about confidentiality, stigma, and discrimination. Chinese Australian groups were less studied, but of interest was a finding from qualitative research indicating that different views of who close family members are could impact on reported family history of cancer, which could in turn impact a risk assessment. CONCLUSION: Interventions are needed to increase awareness and knowledge of genetic testing for cancer risk and to reduce the perceived stigma and taboo surrounding the topic of cancer in ethnic minority groups. More detailed research is needed in countries other than the US and across a broader spectrum of ethnic minority groups to develop effective culturally sensitive approaches for cancer prevention.

Cluster-randomised non-inferiority trial comparing DVD-assisted and traditional genetic counselling in systematic population testing for BRCA1/2 mutations.

BACKGROUND: Newer approaches to genetic counselling are required for population-based testing. We compare traditional face-to-face genetic counselling with a DVD-assisted approach for population-based BRCA1/2 testing. METHODS: A cluster-randomised non-inferiority trial in the London Ashkenazi Jewish population. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Ashkenazi Jewish men/women >18 years; exclusion criteria: (a) known BRCA1/2 mutation, (b) previous BRCA1/2 testing and (c) first-degree relative of BRCA1/2 carrier. Ashkenazi Jewish men/women underwent pre-test genetic counselling prior to BRCA1/2 testing in the Genetic Cancer Prediction through Population Screening trial (ISRCTN73338115). Genetic counselling clinics (clusters) were randomised to traditional counselling (TC) and DVD-based counselling (DVD-C) approaches. DVD-C involved a DVD presentation followed by shorter face-to-face genetic counselling. Outcome measures included genetic testing uptake, cancer risk perception, increase in knowledge, counselling time and satisfaction (Genetic Counselling Satisfaction Scale). Random-effects models adjusted for covariates compared outcomes between TC and DVD-C groups. One-sided 97.5% CI was used to determine non-inferiority. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: relevance, satisfaction, adequacy, emotional impact and improved understanding with the DVD; cost-minimisation analysis for TC and DVD-C approaches. RESULTS: 936 individuals (clusters=256, mean-size=3.6) were randomised to TC (n=527, clusters=134) and DVD-C (n=409, clusters=122) approaches. Groups were similar at baseline, mean age=53.9 (SD=15) years, women=66.8%, men=33.2%. DVD-C was non-inferior to TC for increase in knowledge (d=-0.07; lower 97.5% CI=-0.41), counselling satisfaction (d=-0.38, 97.5% CI=1.2) and risk perception (d=0.08; upper 97.5% CI=3.1). Group differences and CIs did not cross non-inferiority margins. DVD-C was equivalent to TC for uptake of genetic testing (d=-3%; lower/upper 97.5% CI -7.9%/1.7%) and superior for counselling time (20.4 (CI 18.7 to 22.2) min reduction (p<0.005)). 98% people found the DVD length and information satisfactory. 85-89% felt it improved their understanding of risks/benefits/implications/purpose of genetic testing. 95% would recommend it to others. The cost of genetic counselling for DVD-C=£7787 and TC=£17 307. DVD-C resulted in cost savings=£9520 (£14/volunteer). CONCLUSIONS: DVD-C is an effective, acceptable, non-inferior, time-saving and cost-efficient alternative to TC. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN 73338115.

Contemplating genetic feedback regarding lung cancer susceptibility.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: We examined three theoretical models (self-enhancement theory, consistency theory, and a combined model) for understanding how expectations and test result favorability influence smokers' desire for a retest following hypothetical genetic test results. METHOD: College smokers (N = 128) read a brochure describing a biomarker for lung cancer (the GSTM1 gene) then reported whether they thought they had the gene (indicating lower lung cancer risk) or were missing the gene (indicating higher lung cancer risk). Participants then reported whether they would get retested if they received favorable GSTM1 results versus unfavorable GSTM1 results. RESULTS: Participants were most likely to want a retest, suggesting rejection of the results, if they expected favorable news yet received unfavorable news. CONCLUSION: The findings supported the combined model such that smokers expressed greatest interest in a retest when they imagined genetic risk feedback that challenges both enhancement and consistency motives.

Willingness to participate in genomics research and desire for personal results among underrepresented minority patients: a structured interview study.

Patients from traditionally underrepresented communities need to be involved in discussions around genomics research including attitudes towards participation and receiving personal results. Structured interviews, including open-ended and closed-ended questions, were conducted with 205 patients in an inner-city hospital outpatient clinic: 48 % of participants self-identified as Black or African American, 29 % Hispanic, 10 % White; 49 % had an annual household income of <$20,000. When the potential for personal results to be returned was not mentioned, 82 % of participants were willing to participate in genomics research. Reasons for willingness fell into four themes: altruism; benefit to family members; personal health benefit; personal curiosity and improving understanding. Reasons for being unwilling fell into five themes: negative perception of research; not personally relevant; negative feelings about procedures (e.g., blood draws); practical barriers; and fear of results. Participants were more likely to report that they would participate in genomics research if personal results were offered than if they were not offered (89 vs. 62 % respectively, p < 0.001). Participants were more interested in receiving personal genomic risk results for cancer, heart disease and type 2 diabetes than obesity (89, 89, 91, 80 % respectively, all p < 0.001). The only characteristic consistently associated with interest in receiving personal results was disease-specific worry. There was considerable willingness to participate in and desire for personal results from genomics research in this sample of predominantly low-income, Hispanic and African American patients. When returning results is not practical, or even when it is, alternatively or additionally providing generic information about genomics and health may also be a valuable commodity to underrepresented minority and other populations considering participating in genomics research.

Motivations for genetic testing for lung cancer risk among young smokers.

OBJECTIVE: To examine why young people might want to undergo genetic susceptibility testing for lung cancer despite knowing that tested gene variants are associated with small increases in disease risk. METHODS: The authors used a mixed-method approach to evaluate motives for and against genetic testing and the association between these motivations and testing intentions in 128 college students who smoke. RESULTS: Exploratory factor analysis yielded four reliable factors: Test Scepticism, Test Optimism, Knowledge Enhancement and Smoking Optimism. Test Optimism and Knowledge Enhancement correlated positively with intentions to test in bivariate and multivariate analyses (ps<0.001). Test Scepticism correlated negatively with testing intentions in multivariate analyses (p<0.05). Open-ended questions assessing testing motivations generally replicated themes of the quantitative survey. CONCLUSION: In addition to learning about health risks, young people may be motivated to seek genetic testing for reasons, such as gaining knowledge about new genetic technologies more broadly.

Testing different communication formats on responses to imagined risk of having versus missing the GSTM1 gene.

Genetic markers of lung cancer susceptibility, such as the common variant of the glutathione S-transferase Mu 1 gene (GSTM1-null), confer small probabilities of disease risk. The authors explored the influence of different approaches to communicating the small variations in risk associated with this biomarker. College smokers (N = 128) imagined that they had the GSTM1 wild-type variant versus the GSTM1 null-type variant. The authors presented lung cancer risk in 6 ways that varied the risk format (absolute risk vs. incremental risk) and the presentation style of the information (no graphics vs. graphic display of foreground only vs. graphic display of foreground + background). Presentation style had minor effects. However, absolute risk information increased negative emotions more than did incremental risk information. Perceptions of risk and negative emotions were most profoundly affected by the difference between having the GSTM1 wild-type variant versus the GSTM1 null-type variant. The authors discuss implications for conveying small probabilities related to genetic risk.

Young smokers' views of genetic susceptibility testing for lung cancer risk: minding unintended consequences.

Assessment of smokers' responses to individualized feedback of genetic susceptibility has shown little or no influence on smoking cessation outcomes. One explanation is that smokers may be having unintended responses that undermine the feedback's motivational impact (e.g., fatalism or downplaying risk). In preparation for a large randomized trial with college smokers, we conducted a qualitative pilot study to explore smokers' motives for genetic testing and how these motives might influence interpretation of genetic risk feedback.Prior to reviewing informational materials describing a test for the glutathione S-transferase M1 gene, 33 college smokers (18 to 21 years) participated in a 30 minute, semi-structured, open-ended interview regarding their attitudes on health risks, genetic testing in general, genetic testing for lung cancer risk, and informational needs regarding genetics and genetic testing for lung cancer risk.Two central themes emerged from analysis of the interviews: general impressions of genetic testing and perceived value of genetic testing. Prominent in the second theme was the finding that genetic risk feedback may be unsuccessful in motivating quitting a) due to skepticism about genetic tests, b) participants dismissing genetic feedback as personally irrelevant, and c) participants receiving low risk results justifying continued smoking in light of public health messages that "it's never too late to quit". These findings require careful consideration among health professionals looking to genetic risk feedback as a vehicle to motivate disease prevention or behavior change.

Public awareness of genetic influence on chronic disease risk: are genetic and lifestyle causal beliefs compatible?

BACKGROUND/AIMS: There is concern that raising awareness about the role of genetics in chronic disease etiology could undermine public belief that lifestyles are important, leading to adverse effects on public health. We tested the hypothesis that people who believe genetics influence chronic disease risk are less likely to believe lifestyles play a role. METHODS: Open-ended questions about cancer and heart disease risk factors were included in a population-based survey of 1,747 British adults. Responses were coded for causal beliefs about genetics and lifestyle (smoking, diet, alcohol, exercise). RESULTS: One third of the respondents identified genetic factors as influencing cancer (35%) and heart disease (36%) risk. Identifying genetic risk was associated with female gender, older age and education for both diseases, as well as with family history for heart disease. Individuals identifying genetic influences on cancer risk were more likely to identify diet (p < 0.001) and exercise (p < 0.05), and mentioned more lifestyle factors overall (p < 0.05), independent of demographics and family history. Patterns were similar for heart disease. CONCLUSION: People who recognize that genetics influence chronic disease risk appear more, not less, likely to recognize the role of lifestyles, contradicting suggestions that the public takes an 'either/or' view of the etiology of these potentially preventable diseases.

The behavioral response to personalized genetic information: will genetic risk profiles motivate individuals and families to choose more healthful behaviors?

This report describes the use of information emerging from genetic discovery to motivate risk-reducing health behaviors. Most research to date has evaluated the effects of information related to rare genetic variants on screening behaviors, in which genetic risk feedback has been associated consistently with improved screening adherence. The limited research with common genetic variants suggests that genetic information, when based on single-gene variants with low-risk probabilities, has little impact on behavior. The effect on behavioral outcomes of more realistic testing scenarios in which genetic risk is based on numerous genetic variants is largely unexplored. Little attention has been directed to matching genetic information to the literacy levels of target audiences. Another promising area for research is consideration of using genetic information to identify risk shared within kinship networks and to expand the influence of behavior change beyond the individual.

Responses to online GSTM1 genetic test results among smokers related to patients with lung cancer: a pilot study.

Providing smokers with personal genetic test results indicating increased lung cancer risk may increase uptake of effective smoking cessation services. Using the internet may increase reach and enable real-time assessment of how people process genetic risk information away from the clinic setting. We therefore explored smokers' responses to Web-delivered GSTM1 genetic test results indicating higher or lower lung cancer risk. Participants were smokers (n = 44) biologically related to patients with newly diagnosed lung cancer. Measures were assessed at baseline, before and immediately after receipt of online genetic test results, and at 6-month follow-up. Outcomes included accurate comprehension of results, regret about being tested, cessation-related cognitions (e.g., perceived response efficacy), and uptake of free smoking cessation services (nicotine replacement therapy, printed self-help materials, telephone counseling sessions). Twenty-two "relative smokers" received a GSTM1-missing (higher risk) and 22 a GSTM1-present (lower risk) result. All relative smokers with GSTM1-missing results and 55% of those with GSTM1-present results accurately interpreted their results. No relative smokers regretted having taken the test. Relative smokers receiving GSTM1-missing results reported lower confidence that quitting could reduce lung cancer risk (perceived response efficacy) than those receiving GSTM1-present results. There were no other significant between-group differences. Uptake of smoking cessation services was high (e.g., 91% nicotine replacement therapy uptake). Genetic test results may not influence uptake of free smoking cessation services because of ceiling effects. Further research is needed to determine the risks and benefits of Web-based disclosure of genetic test results.