Public understanding and reactions to the custom information genetic risk: results of the collaboration of personalized medicine Coriell

PharmaLive.com (November 5, 2010) - currently, is little known about how people interpret and react to information risk Genomics custom for the communes of complex conditions. Addressing this knowledge gap, a group of researchers led by Barbara Bernhardt, MS, GCC, Professor of medicine clinical and Co-Director of the Penn Center for the integration of genetic Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania health technologies conducted interviews with people who have received the results of genetic risk for seven municipalities of health through custom Coriell medicine collaborative (CMPC) conditions, a research project examines the clinical information utility on the risks of genomic custom. The interview included questions about understanding of participants in their risk of disease and the actions they have based on their results.

The transcript of the 60 interview analyzed in this study, researchers found that most people seem to have a good understanding of their results, although some had difficulty interpreting relative risk values.Participants tend to interpret their risks based on the results of genetic tests combined with their family and their médicaux.Bien some participants were surprised to find an increased risk of genetic disorder which was not in their family backgrounds, no participant reported being overly concerned their risks.

Approximately one-third of the participants in the study have acted on the information provided in the report by changing their lifestyle or health, but most of the participants reported that slightly modify healthy behaviours that they were already (including a healthy diet, exercise, take vitamins or sunscreen) .Seulement some participants said that they have launched a new behavior for risk reduction. Those who reported no change in behavior is estimated that they were already doing all they can to reduce their risk or felt their level of risk is high enough to justify any changes.

More than half of the study participants reported that they share their results with a doctor, and most of them said that they would share the results with their doctor at a later date. Participants share their results based on the belief that doctors would be interested to know this information and it would allow them to provide recommendations to reduce the risk of maladie.Pense than most of the participants shared their results that their doctor had a good understanding of the results. However, approximately one-quarter of the study, participants indicated that their physician does not understand results, or that he did not know what to do with eux.recommandations made by physicians (e.g., lose weight, lipid blood test, less than dietary fats) followed the recommendations of the standard of the population.

«By through our interviews with people who receive information about their genetic risk for common health conditions complex, we discovered that most participants in the study have a good understanding of custom test results predict their risk of disease, "said Bernhardt.»We have also discovered that these people were too worried or falsely assured by their results, and they are likely to reduce the risk that are aligned with the level of their risk of disease.»

Bernhardt has noted that "more research is needed to determine whether these positive results are generalisable to larger populations, and whether they can be made during the test no are not accompanied by the large type and post-test education available in the Coriell project".

This research was presented at the American Society of Human Genetics 60th annual meeting, held from 2 to 6 November 2010 in Washington, D.C.

Editor's note: this article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.

Source of the story:

The story above is reproduced (with drafting adaptations by staff at PharmaLive.com) materials provided by The American Society of Human Genetics.

Note: If no author is given, the source is cited for this.

View the original article here