An epidemiologic-based survey of public attitudes towards predictive genetic testing in Russia

Papers of special note have been highlighted as: ▪ of interest ▪▪ of considerable interest

Bibliography

• 1  Haga SB, Khoury MJ, Burke W: Genomic profiling to promote a healthy lifestyle: not ready for prime time. Nat. Genet.34,347–350 (2003).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 2  McGuire AL, Burke W: An unwelcome side effect of direct-to-consumer personal genome testing: raiding the medical commons. JAMA300,2669–2671 (2008).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 3  Grosse SD, Khoury MJ: What is the clinical utility of genetic testing? Genet. Med.8,448–450 (2006).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 4  Offit K: Genomic profiles for disease risk: predictive or premature? JAMA299,1353–1355 (2008).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 5  Borry P, Evers-Kiebooms G, Cornel MC, Clarke A, Dierickx K: Genetic testing in asymptomatic minors. Eur. J. Hum. Genet.17,711–719 (2009).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 6  Gurwitz D, Bregman-Eschet Y: Personal genomics services: whose genomes? Eur. J. Hum. Genet.17,883–889 (2009).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 7  Evans JP, Green RC: Direct to consumer genetic testing: avoiding a culture war. Genet. Med.11,568–569 (2009).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 8  Ng PC, Murray SS, Levy S, Venter JC: An agenda for personalized medicine. Nature461,724–726 (2009).▪ Compares the results of two direct-to-consumer companies on risk assessments for 13 diseases in five individuals, and proposes several recommendations based on their findings for both direct-to-consumer companies and the scientific community on how to improve genetic diagnostics.
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 9  Khoury MJ, McBride CM, Schully SD et al.: The scientific foundation for personal genomics: recommendations from a national Institutes of Health Centers for Disease Control and Prevention multidisciplinary workshop. Genet. Med.11(8),559–567 (2009).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 10  Sanderson SC, Wardle J, Jarvis MJ, Humphries SE: Public interest in genetic testing for susceptibility to heart disease and cancer: a population-based survey in the UK. Prevent. Med.39(3),458–464 (2004).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 11  Berth H, Balck F, Dinkel A: Attitudes toward genetic testing in patients at risk for HNPCC/FAP and the German population. Genet. Test.6,273–280 (2002).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 12  Aro AR, Hakonen A, Hietala M et al.: Acceptance of genetic testing in a general population: age, education and gender differences. Patient Educ. Couns.32,41–49 (1997).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 13  Henneman L, Timmermans DRM, Van Der Wal G: Public attitudes toward genetic testing: perceived benefits and objections. Gen. Testing.10(2),139–145 (2006).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 14  Jallinoja P, Aro AR: Does knowledge make a difference? The association between knowledge about genes and attitudes toward gene tests. J. Health Comm.5,29–39 (2000).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 15  Wilde A, Meiser B, Mitchell PB, Schofield PR: Public interest in predictive genetic testing, including direct-to-consumer testing, for susceptibility to major depression: preliminary findings. Eur. J. Hum. Genet.18,47–51 (2010).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 16  Gollust SE, Hull SC, Wilfond BS: Limitations of direct-to-consumer advertising for clinical genetic testing. JAMA288,1762–1767 (2002).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 17  Brunger JW, Murray GS, O’Riordan M, Matthews AL, Smith RJ, Robin NH: Parental attitudes toward genetic testing for pediatric deafness. Am. J. Hum. Genet.67,1621–1625 (2000).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 18  Umans-Eckenhausen MA, Oort FJ, Ferenschild KC, Defesche JC, Kastelein JJ, de Haes JC: Parental attitude towards genetic testing for familial hypercholesterolaemia in children. J. Med. Genet.39(9),E49 (2002).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 19  Elwood JM: Public health aspects of breast cancer gene testing in Canada. Part 2: selection for and effects of testing. Chronic. Dis. Can.20(1),14–20 (1999).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 20  Neumann PJ, Hammitt JK, Mueller C et al.: Public attitudes about genetic testing for Alzheimer’s disease. Health Aff. (Millwood)20(5),252–264 (2001).▪▪ Examines the interest in a hypothetical predictive test for Alzheimer’s disease in the general population.
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 21  Makeeva OA, Markova VV, Puzyrev VP: Public interest and expectations concerning commercial genotyping and genetic risk assessment. Pers. Med.6(3),329–341 (2009).▪▪ Earlier paper published on the survey’s results of the Russian general public’s attitude towards different aspects of predisposition genetic testing.
  Google Scholar
• 22  Stewart-Knox BJ, Bunting BP, Gilpin S et al.: Attitudes toward genetic testing and personalized nutrition in a representative sample of European consumers. Br. J. Nutr.101,982–989 (2008).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 23  Meiser B, Kasparian NA, Mitchell PB et al.: Attitudes to genetic testing in families with multiple cases of bipolar disorder. Genet. Test.12(2),233–243 (2008).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 24  Lerman C, Biesecker B, Benkendorf JL et al.: Controlled trial of pretest education approaches to enhance informed decision-making for BRCA1 gene testing. J. Natl. Cancer. Inst.89,148–157 (1997).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 25  Bernhardt C, Schwan AM, Kraus P, Epplen JT, Kunstmann E: Decreasing uptake of predictive testing for Huntington’s disease in a German centre: 12 years’ experience (1993–2004). Eur. J. Hum. Genet.17(3),295–300 (2009).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 26  Creighton S, Almqvist EW, MacGregor D et al.: Predictive, pre-natal and diagnostic genetic testing for Huntington’s disease: the experience in Canada from 1987 to 2000. Clin. Genet.63(6),462–475. (2003).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 27  Toiviainen H, Jallinoja P, Aro AR, Hemminki E: Medical and lay attitudes towards genetic screening and testing in Finland. Eur. J. Hum. Genet.11,565–572 (2003).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 28  Press NA, Yasui Y, Reynolds S, Durfy SJ, Burke W: Women’s interest in genetic testing for breast cancer susceptibility may be based on unrealistic expectations. Am. J. Med. Genet.99(2),99–110 (2001).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 29  McBride CM, Alford SH, Reid RJ, Larson EB, Baxevanis AD, Brody LC: Characteristics of users of online personalized genomic risk assessments: implications for physician–patient interactions. Genet. Med.11(8),582–587 (2009).▪ Presents results of a population-based study that prospectively evaluated effects of offering genetic testing for multiple health conditions to a large and heterogeneous population of healthy people.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 30  Heshka JT, Palleschi C, Howley H, Wilson B, Wells PS: A systematic review of perceived risks, psychological and behavioral impacts of genetic testing. Genet. Med.10,19–32 (2008).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 31  Ulrich CM, Kristal AR, White E, Hunt JR, Durfy SJ, Potter JD: Genetic testing for cancer risk: a population survey on attitudes and intention. Comm. Genet.1,213–222 (1998).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 32  Wilhelm K, Meiser B, Mitchell PB et al.: Issues concerning feedback about genetic testing and risk of depression. Br. J. Psychiatry.194(5),404–410 (2009).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 33  Nelson HD, Huffman LH, Fu R, Harris EL: Genetic risk assessment and BRCA mutation testing for breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility: systematic evidence review for the U.S. Preventive services task force. Ann. Intern. Med.143,362–379 (2005).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 34  Green RC, Roberts JS, Cupples LA et al.: Disclose of APOE genotype for risk of Alzheimer’s Disease. N. Engl. J. Med.361(3),245–254 (2009).▪▪ Results of a prospective study that examined the effect of APOE genotype disclosed to the adult progeny of patients with Alzheimer’s disease.
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 35  Mayeux R, Saunders AM, Shea S et al.: Utility of the apolipoprotein E genotype in the diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimer’s Disease Centers Consortium on Apolipoprotein E and Alzheimer’s Disease. N. Engl. J. Med.338(8),506–511 (1998).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 36  Post SG, Whitehouse PJ, Binstock RH et al.: The clinical introduction of genetic testing for Alzheimer disease. An ethical perspective. JAMA277(10),832–836 (1997).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 37  Lutz MW, Crenshaw D, Saunders AM, Roses AD: Structural variants and risk for complex disease: Alzheimer’s disease as a model for autosomal codominant traits. Alzheimer’s Dementia6,125–113 (2010).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 38  Roses AD, Lutz MW, Amrine-Madsen H et al.: A TOMM40 variable-length polymorphism predicts the age of late-onset Alzheimer’s disease. Pharmacogenomics J.22,1–10 (2009).
  Google Scholar
• 39  Caulfield T, Ries NM, Ray PN, Shuman C, Wilson B: Direct-to-consumer genetic testing: good, bad or benign? Clin. Genet.77(2),101–105 (2010).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 101  23andMe & Navigenics’ Open Letter to Naturehttp://spittoon.23andme.com/2009/11/18/23andme-navigenics-open-letter-to-nature
  Google Scholar
• 102  Effect of Type 2 Diabetes Genetic Risk Information on Health Behaviors and Outcomes (TDE) http://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT00849563
  Google Scholar
• 103  Navigenics (press release): Landmark research study is launched to assess impact of personal genetic testing. CA, USA, 9 October (2008) http://www.navigenics.com/visitor/about_us/press/releases/scripps_study_release_100908/
  Google Scholar
• 104  US public opinion on uses of genetic information and genetic discrimination www.dnapolicy.org/resources/GINAPublic_Opinion_Genetic_Information_Discrimination.pdf
  Google Scholar
• 105  Human Genetics Commission: Genes direct. Ensuring the effective oversight of genetic tests supplied directly to the public (2003) www.hgc.gov.uk/UploadDocs/DocPub/Document/genesdirect_full.pdf
  Google Scholar
• 106  Freedman D, Furness P, Green A et al.: Making Sense of Testing: A Guide to Why Scans and Health Tests For Well People Aren’t Always A Good Idea. Sense About Science, London, UK (2008) www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/pdf/makingsenseoftesting.pdf▪▪ Presents an expert overview of arguments and reasons why most of tests are not designed to be used by healthy people.
  Google Scholar