An experimental investigation of factors involved in the decision to undertake genetic testing for schizophrenia

The Need to Consider Context: A Systematic Review of Factors Involved in the Consent Process for Genetic Tests from the Perspective of Patients

Background: Informed consent for genetic tests is a well-established practice. It should be based on good quality information and in keeping with the patient's values. Existing informed consent assessment tools assess knowledge and values. Nevertheless, there is no consensus on what specific elements need to be discussed or considered in the consent process for genetic tests.Methods: We performed a systematic review to identify all factors involved in the decision-making and consent process about genetic testing, from the perspective of patients. Through public databases, we identified studies reporting factors that influence the decision to accept or decline genetic testing. Studies were included if they reported the perspective of patients or at-risk individuals. All articles were thematically coded.Results: 1989 articles were reviewed: 70 met inclusion criteria and 12 additional articles were identified through the references of included studies. Coding of the 82 articles led to the identification of 45 factors involved in decision-making and consent, which were initially divided into three domains: in favor of, against or with an undetermined influence on genetic testing. Each factor was also divided into three subdomains relating to the informed choice concept: knowledge, values or other. The factors in the "other" subdomain were all related to the context of testing (e.g. timing, cost, influence of family members, etc), and were present in all three domains.Conclusions: We describe the network of factors contributing to decision-making and consent process and identify the context of genetic testing as a third component to influence this process. Future studies should consider the evaluation of contextual factors as an important and relevant component of the consent and decision-making process about genetic tests. Based on these results, we plan to develop and test a more comprehensive tool to assess informed consent for genetic testing.

Psychosocial implications of living with familial risk of a psychiatric disorder and attitudes to psychiatric genetic testing: A systematic review of the literature

The aim of this systematic review was to synthesize the existing evidence documenting the psychosocial implications of living with a familial risk of an adult-onset psychiatric disorder. Six databases were searched systematically to identify qualitative and quantitative studies, which explored perspectives of those at increased risk for psychiatric disorders, as well as the general public. Thematic analysis was used to identify major themes. Thirty-five articles met the eligibility criteria and reported on the views of 4,896 participants. The literature demonstrates strong interest in psychiatric genetic testing of adults as well as children, whereas attitudes toward prenatal testing were much less positive. Predictors of interest in testing, as well as perceived advantages and disadvantages were identified. Very few studies are available on anticipated and actual reactions to receiving results. Studies show that the majority of participants feel that having a genetic explanation would alleviate some of the stigma associated with mental illness. This review shows that interest in, and predictors of attitudes toward, psychiatric genetic testing are well researched, but the extent to which attitudes will translate into actual testing uptake is unknown. Future research also needs to assess the actual behavioral and psychological impact of genetic testing.

Concerns about Genetic Testing for Schizophrenia among Young Adults at Clinical High Risk for Psychosis

BACKGROUND

Genetic tests for schizophrenia may introduce risks and benefits. Among young adults at clinical high-risk for psychosis, little is known about their concerns and how they assess potential risks.

METHODS

We conducted semi-structured interviews with 15 young adults at clinical high-risk for psychosis to ask about their concerns.

RESULTS

Participants expressed concerns about test reliability, data interpretation, stigma, psychological harm, family planning, and privacy. Participants' responses showed some departure from the ethics literature insofar as participants were primarily interested in reporting their results to people to whom they felt emotionally close, and expressed little consideration of biological closeness. Additionally, if tests showed an increased genetic risk for schizophrenia, four clinical high-risk persons felt obligated to tell an employer and another three would "maybe" tell an employer, even in the absence of clinical symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest opportunities for clinicians and genetic counselors to intervene with education and support.

Helping patients to reach decisions regarding their treatment: Do 'non-directive' approaches cause systematic bias?

OBJECTIVES

Many patients want help in considering medical information relevant to treatment decisions they have to make or agree to. The present research investigated whether focussing on particular issues relevant to a medical treatment decision (using an apparently non-directive procedure) could systematically bias a treatment decision.

DESIGN AND METHODS

In a randomized design, participants (community volunteers, n = 146) were given standard information about treatment of cardiac risk factors by medication (statins). There were four experimental interventions in which the participants focussed on the likely personal relevance of subsets of the information previously given (positive, negative, or mixed aspects) or on irrelevant information. Participants were asked to rate their anticipated likelihood of accepting treatment before and after the experimental intervention.

RESULTS

The rating of acceptance of treatment was significantly increased by positive focussing; negative focussing did not significantly alter the decision rating.

CONCLUSIONS

The results partially replicate similar studies in health screening decisions. Reasons for the differences in results from those obtained in screening studies are considered. It is suggested that negative focussing may have less effect in decisions in which there are few risks. Statement of contribution What is already known on this subject? Decision-making in the context of health behaviour change has been widely described, but there are few experimental studies testing hypothesised strategies. 'Non-directiveness' is often regarded as desirable because it supposedly allows exploration of the decision without influencing it. Previous studies on health screening (but not treatment) have shown that health decision outcomes can be systematically influenced by the way in which a 'non-directive' intervention is implemented. This can be accounted for by a modified subjective expected utility theory previously applied to both health screening and child vaccination decisions. What does this study add? The hypothetical decision about whether or not, in future, to take statins for elevated cholesterol levels was influenced by positive but not by negative focussing. Results were consistent with the theoretical framework. This study extends previous work on influences on the decision to undertake health screening and vaccination to treatment offered as secondary prevention. 'Non-directive' approaches to helping facilitate decisions can modify those decisions, and as such cannot be regarded as non-directive.

Predictors of genetic testing decisions: a systematic review and critique of the literature

Genetic testing is increasingly available in medical settings and direct-to-consumer. However, the large and growing literature on genetic testing decisions is rife with conflicting findings, inconsistent methodology, and uneven attention across test types and across predictors of genetic testing decisions. Existing reviews of the literature draw broad conclusions but sacrifice nuanced analysis that with a closer look reveals far more inconsistency than homogeny across studies. The goals of this paper are to provide a systematic review of the empirical work on predictors of genetic testing decisions, highlight areas of consistency and inconsistency, and suggest productive directions for future research. We included all studies that provided quantitative analysis of subjective (e.g., perceived risk, perceived benefits of testing) and/or objective (e.g., family history, sociodemographic variables) predictors of genetic testing interest, intentions, or uptake, which produced a sample of 115 studies. From this review, we conclude that self-reported and test-related (as opposed to disorder-related or objective) predictors are relatively consistent across studies but that theoretically-driven efforts to examine testing interest across test types are sorely needed.