scholarly journals Consumer preferences for the predictive genetic tests for Alzheimer’s disease

2012 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 61-67 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ming-Yi Huang ◽  
Matthew Perri III
Keyword(s):  
Alzheimer’S Disease ◽  
Alzheimer's Disease ◽  
Genetic Testing ◽  
Genetic Test ◽  
Public Awareness ◽  
False Negative ◽  
Consumer Preference ◽  
Predictive Genetic Testing ◽  
Genetic Tests ◽  
Predictive Genetic Tests

With the advent of predictive genetic tests, individuals will have the option to investigate their future risk of developing diseases like Alzheimer’s disease (AD). This knowledge can benefit people as they start to prepare themselves as well as their families for the disease process. The use of predictive genetic tests will likely increase as technology and genetic marker identification continues to advance. Thus, aligning the clinical practice of predictive genetic testing for Alzheimer’s disease with patient values and preferences has the potential to improve healthcare delivery. Several issues have been identified in this review regarding people’s preference when making a decision to test for AD, which include prediction value (i.e. false-positive/false-negative results), availability of treatments that would prevent or delay onset of AD, and anonymity/confidentiality. Literature indicates the most relevant issues regarding consumer preference for AD genetic testing is predictive value (accuracy). While fewer studies have discussed the effects of treatment availability or anonymity on consumer preference, these issues may become more important as technology continues to advance and public awareness of these issues increases. Future research in the area of consumer behavior with regard to predictive genetic testing is suggested.Most previous studies regarding consumer intent and preference for AD genetic tests have used small samples, convenience samples, or samples which were predominantly Caucasian, female and high socioeconomic status. Additionally, effects of most socio-demographics on the preference for AD genetic test are unclear in the literature. Conflicting results have been found regarding gender, education, income, and culture. An extension of the previous work using a larger and randomized sample may help to provide clearer relationship between these socio-demographics and consumer preference for AD genetic test.

Predictive Genetic Testing for Alzheimer's Disease: Impact upon Risk Perception

Risk Analysis ◽  
2005 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 397-404 ◽  
Author(s):  
Theresa M. Marteau ◽  
Scott Roberts ◽  
Susan LaRusse ◽  
Robert C. Green
Keyword(s):  
Alzheimer’S Disease ◽  
Alzheimer's Disease ◽  
Genetic Testing ◽  
Risk Perception ◽  
Predictive Genetic Testing ◽  
Disease Impact

Cancer specialists in the VA as early adopters of clinical genetic services.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 11029-11029
Author(s):  
Maren Theresa Scheuner ◽  
Paloma Sales ◽  
Mary Whooley ◽  
Katherine Hoggatt ◽  
Michael Kelley
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Genetic Testing ◽  
Genetic Test ◽  
Primary Care Providers ◽  
Precision Oncology ◽  
Genetic Tests ◽  
The Past ◽  
Cancer Specialists ◽  
Genetics Referral ◽  
Test Ordering

11029 Background: Genetic testing has become essential to delivery of cancer treatment, risk assessment, surveillance, and prevention. We sought to understand the use of genetic tests by clinicians in the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). Methods: We administered a web-based survey to clinicians at 20 VA facilities with precision oncology programs. We excluded respondents if they were: not at one of the 20 VA facilities; not seeing patients in VA; not a physician, nurse practitioner (NP), physician assistant (PA), or pharmacist; a medical geneticist or specialty was not reported; or if the survey was incomplete. Using multiple logistic regression, we assessed the association between genetic test ordering, genetics referral, and clinician characteristics. Results: There were 909 (909/11,442, 8%) eligible respondents with 61% women and 64% under age 55. There were 571 physicians (63%), 200 NPs (22%), 93 pharmacists (10%), and 45 PAs 5(%). There were 361 (40%) primary care providers (PCPs), 90 (10%) cancer specialists, and 458 (50%) non-cancer specialists. Only 21% of clinicians reported feeling prepared to use genetic tests in their practice. In the past year, only 8% had ordered at least one multi-gene cancer test (germline, tumor or both), 12% a pharmacogenetic test, and 0.2%, an exome. Compared to physicians, NPs were 60% less likely (OR = 0.42, 0.23-0.77, p = 0.005), pharmacists, 80% less likely (OR = 0.22, 0.08-0.62, p = 0.005), and PAs, 90% less likely (OR = 0.08, 0.01-0.58, p = 0.01) to have ordered a genetic test. Compared to PCPs, cancer specialists were almost 5 times more likely to order a genetic test (OR = 4.74, 2.57-8.73, p < 0.0001); there was no difference in genetic test ordering between PCPs and non-cancer specialists. Among clinicians (n = 72) who had ordered cancer genetic tests, only about two-thirds were confident in knowing the indications for testing; discussing the potential benefits, harms and limitations of testing; understanding the test report; and knowing implications of results on disease management and prevention. Clinicians (n = 106) who had ordered pharmacogenetic tests had lower frequencies of confidence in these tasks. About half (52%) of the cancer specialists had referred patients to genetics in the past year; they were 1.8 times more likely than PCPs to refer (OR = 1.82, 1.10-3.03, p = 0.02), and non-cancer specialists were about 50% less likely than PCPs to refer (OR = 0.46, 0.33-0.64, p < 0.0001). Conclusions: In the VA, cancer specialists are integrating genetic testing and genetics referral into their practice more than PCPs and other specialists. However, genetic testing is underutilized, and many clinicians remain unprepared to use genetic tests in their practice. These results will inform workforce planning, clinician education, and development of clinical decision support to facilitate genetic risk assessment, informed consent, and ordering of genetic tests.

United States

2019 ◽  
pp. 305-312
Author(s):  
Angela M Lunde ◽  
Ronald C Petersen ◽  
John A Lucas
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Alzheimer’S Disease ◽  
Alzheimer's Disease ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Public Awareness ◽  
The United States ◽  
Care Quality ◽  
National Plan ◽  
Genetic Studies ◽  
Number Of Treatment

In the United States, the National Alzheimer’s Project Act was signed into law in January 2011, and the first National Plan appeared just over 12 months later, with five goals: to prevent and effectively treat Alzheimer’s disease by 2025, to enhance care quality and efficiency, to expand support for people with Alzheimer’s disease and their families, to enhance public awareness and engagement, and to improve data to track progress. The National Plan has seen a rise in research funding (currently standing at US$1.4 billion). Individual states, at the same time, began discussions about initiatives aimed at addressing personal, societal, and financial implications of Alzheimer’s disease. An example is from Minnesota where counselling and support for caregivers are provided, with an estimated saving for the state of Minnesota of US$970 million by 2025. In addition, a number of treatment trials are under way, looking at the effect of monoclonal antibodies on Alzheimer’s disease and a series of genetic studies.

“Choosing Wisely”: Apolipoprotein E Genetic Testing for the Diagnosis of Alzheimer’s Disease in Dementia Clinics

2020 ◽  
Vol 74 (4) ◽  
pp. 1253-1260
Author(s):  
Hyun Ju Yang ◽  
Na Ri Kang ◽  
Young Eun Jung ◽  
Moon Doo Kim ◽  
Hyun Ghang Jeong ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Alzheimer’S Disease ◽  
Alzheimer's Disease ◽  
Genetic Testing ◽  
Apolipoprotein E ◽  
Choosing Wisely

Genetic testing for Alzheimer's disease

2000 ◽  
Vol 172 (7) ◽  
pp. 339-343 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter K Panegyres ◽  
Carmela Connor ◽  
Toni Liebeck ◽  
Jack Goldblatt ◽  
Ian Walpole ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Alzheimer’S Disease ◽  
Alzheimer's Disease ◽  
Genetic Testing

Genetic testing in familial and young-onset Alzheimer's disease: mutation spectrum in a Serbian cohort

2012 ◽  
Vol 33 (7) ◽  
pp. 1481.e7-1481.e12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Valerija Dobricic ◽  
Elka Stefanova ◽  
Milena Jankovic ◽  
Nicole Gurunlian ◽  
Ivana Novakovic ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Alzheimer’S Disease ◽  
Alzheimer's Disease ◽  
Genetic Testing ◽  
Mutation Spectrum ◽  
Young Onset ◽  
Disease Mutation
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document