Contemplating genetic feedback regarding lung cancer susceptibility

In-vivo design feedback and perceived utility of a genetically-informed smoking risk tool among current smokers in the community

BACKGROUND

The use of genetically-informed personalized risk information for behavioral disorders, namely smoking and smoking-related behaviors, is a promising yet understudied area. The Genetics and Smoking Risk Profile, or RiskProfile, leverages genetic and environmental information to communicate one's risk for smoking-related diseases. Although prior studies have examined attitudes toward genetic results, little research has investigated these perceptions through a lens of in-vivo testing; that is, user-centered design feedback in response to personalized genetic results being returned contemporaneously. This qualitative study engaged current smokers in usability testing of the RiskProfile within the context of concurrently receiving this personalized, genetically-informed smoking cessation intervention.

METHODS

Eighty-nine participants who were current smokers responded to open-ended interview questions on perceptions of smoking-related genetic information and the content and format of the RiskProfile intervention that they had received moments before. Data were analyzed via the conventional content analysis approach in which themes were allowed to emerge throughout the analysis.

RESULTS

Participants were able to reference and offer design input on specific elements of the RiskProfile. Overall, current smokers perceived the RiskProfile to have high potential utility. Constructive feedback that current smokers offered about the tool centered around suggested improvements to optimize its usability and technical content.

CONCLUSIONS

The detailed and constructive feedback from participants highlights that in-vivo feedback offers a useful design approach that addresses concerns of rigor and relevance when returning genetic results. This unique method demonstrated perceived utility and constructive design feedback for the RiskProfile among current smokers and can play an important role in optimizing the design and implementation of personalized genetic risk interventions moving forward.

The role of screening expectations in modifying short-term psychological responses to low-dose computed tomography lung cancer screening among high-risk individuals

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to examine the relationship between pre-screening expectations and psychological responses to low-dose computerised tomography (LDCT) screening among high-risk individuals in the United Kingdom Lung Cancer Screening (UKLS) pilot trial.

METHODS

Prior to screening, high-risk individuals randomised into the intervention arm of the UKLS were asked about their expected screening test result. Their actual LDCT scan result was compared with their baseline screening expectation to determine the level of congruence. Levels of concern about and perceived accuracy of the result were assessed in a questionnaire two weeks following receipt of their test result.

RESULTS

The sample included 1589 participants. Regardless of their expected results, patients who required follow-up investigations after their initial LDCT scan were the most concerned about their result (p<0.001). Participants who expected to require follow-up, but did not need it, perceived the test to be least accurate (p=0.006).

CONCLUSIONS

Lung cancer screening participants who require follow-up or who have unexpected negative results can be identified for supportive interventions.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

These findings can be used to ensure that any future LDCT lung cancer screening programme is tailored to identify and support those high-risk individuals who may benefit from additional help.

"I don't believe it." Acceptance and skepticism of genetic health information among African-American and White smokers

RATIONALE

Effective translation of genomics research into practice depends on public acceptance of genomics-related health information.

OBJECTIVE

To explore how smokers come to accept or reject information about the relationship between genetics and nicotine addiction.

METHODS

Thirteen focus groups (N = 84) were stratified by education (seven < Bachelor's degree, six ≥ Bachelor's degree) and race (eight black, five white). Participants viewed a 1-min video describing the discovery of a genetic variant associated with increased risk of nicotine addiction and lung cancer. Next, they provided their opinions about the information. Two coders analyzed the data using grounded theory.

RESULTS

Pre-video knowledge about why people smoke cigarettes and what genetic risk means informed beliefs about the relationship between genes and addiction. These beliefs were not always consistent with biomedical explanations, but formed the context through which participants processed the video's information. This, in turn, led to information acceptance or skepticism. Participants explained their reactions in terms of the scientific merits of the research and used their existing knowledge and beliefs to explain their acceptance of or skepticism about the information.

CONCLUSION

Laypeople hold complex understandings of genetics and addiction. However, when lay and biomedical explanations diverge, genetics-related health information may be rejected.

Using an Internet-Based Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool to Improve Social-Cognitive Precursors of Physical Activity

BACKGROUND

Internet-based cancer risk assessment tools might serve as a strategy for translating epidemiological risk prediction research into public health practice. Understanding how such tools affect key social-cognitive precursors of behavior change is crucial for leveraging their potential into effective interventions.

PURPOSE

To test the effects of a publicly available, Internet-based, breast cancer risk assessment tool on social-cognitive precursors of physical activity.

METHODS

Women (N = 132) aged 40-78 with no personal cancer history indicated their perceived risk of breast cancer and were randomly assigned to receive personalized ( www.yourdiseaserisk.wustl.edu ) or nonpersonalized breast cancer risk information. Immediately thereafter, breast cancer risk perceptions and physical activity-related behavioral intentions, self-efficacy, and response efficacy were assessed.

RESULTS

Personalized information elicited higher intentions, self-efficacy, and response efficacy than nonpersonalized information, P values < 0.05. Self-efficacy and response efficacy mediated the effect of personalizing information on intentions. Women who received personalized information corrected their inaccurate risk perceptions to some extent, P values < 0.05, but few fully accepted the information.

CONCLUSION

Internet-based risk assessment tools can produce beneficial effects on important social-cognitive precursors of behavior change, but lingering skepticism, possibly due to defensive processing, needs to be addressed before the effects can be maximized.

Smokers' beliefs about the tobacco control potential of "a gene for smoking": a focus group study

Background

Several genetic variations associated with nicotine dependence and lung cancer exist. Translating this knowledge into tobacco control policy relies on smokers’ perceptions of the implications of the research. This study explored smokers’ beliefs about the tobacco control uses for research examining genomics, smoking, and addiction.

Method

Smokers (N = 85) participated in one of thirteen focus groups and one interview, stratified by race (eight black, six white) and education (seven < Bachelor’s degree, seven ≥ Bachelor’s degree). Data were analyzed by two independent coders using standard analysis and validation techniques.

Results

Nearly all groups suggested using genetic information for youth-oriented tobacco prevention education. Beliefs about the effectiveness of such actions varied. Many participants believed that providing smokers personalized genetic testing results or informing them about the existence of a gene would not motivate people to quit. All smokers emphasized the need for improved smoking cessation treatment options. Using genomics research to develop gene therapies and personalized drug treatments were also mentioned, yet perceptions of such treatments were mixed. Whereas some participants viewed the possibility positively, others expressed concern about cost and access. Participants who were skeptical of the effectiveness of using genetic information for tobacco control noted that the harms of tobacco use are widely known and genetic information does not add much of a deterrent.

Conclusion

Participants generated several possible tobacco control uses for genomics research findings. Our findings suggest that tobacco control experts should consult with smokers prior to implementing tobacco control measures. The potential public health benefits of genetics and genomics research related to tobacco use cannot be realized until communication strategies that are most likely to encourage and support tobacco avoidance decisions, and minimize mistrust and backlash, are identified.