IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v16y2019i24p5112-d297971.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Black Women’s Confidence in the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act

Author

Listed:
  • Arnethea L. Sutton

    (Department of Health Behavior and Policy, Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, Richmond, VA 23298, USA)

  • Alesha Henderson

    (Department of Health Behavior and Policy, Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, Richmond, VA 23298, USA)

  • Alejandra Hurtado-de-Mendoza

    (Department of Oncology, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC 20007, USA)

  • Erin Tanner

    (Greater Washington Maternal-Fetal Medicine and Genetics, Rockville, MD 47872, USA)

  • Mishaal Khan

    (Department of Health Behavior and Policy, Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, Richmond, VA 23298, USA)

  • John Quillin

    (Department of Human and Molecular Genetics, Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, Richmond, VA 23298, USA)

  • Vanessa B. Sheppard

    (Department of Health Behavior and Policy, Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, Richmond, VA 23298, USA
    Office of Health Equity and Disparities Research, VCU Massey Cancer Center, Richmond, VA 23298, USA)

Abstract

Black women at-risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) continue to underutilize genetic counseling and testing (GCT). One reason for this disparity is a fear of discrimination from insurance companies if identified as high-risk. The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) was enacted to protect against this type of discrimination; however, Black women’s levels of confidence in this law are unknown. In this descriptive study, we sought to (1) assess Black women’s confidence in the GINA law and (2) identify multilevel factors related to their confidence in GINA. Ninety-four Black women at-risk of HBOC completed surveys that assessed intrapersonal, interpersonal, and structural factors. Multiple regression analysis determined factors associated with confidence in GINA. Most women were ≤50 years of age (66.0%) and about half never had a cancer diagnosis (51.1%). Confidence in GINA was moderate (mean = 10.67; standard deviation = 2.54; range = 5–15). Women who valued GCT reported more confidence in GINA (β = 0.345; CI 0.017 to 0.673; p = 0.040). Lack of confidence in GINA may serve as a barrier to seeking GCT. Efforts to increase the perceived value of GCT among Black women could be benefited by increasing awareness of national efforts towards privacy protections of genetic information.

Suggested Citation

  • Arnethea L. Sutton & Alesha Henderson & Alejandra Hurtado-de-Mendoza & Erin Tanner & Mishaal Khan & John Quillin & Vanessa B. Sheppard, 2019. "Black Women’s Confidence in the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(24), pages 1-8, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:16:y:2019:i:24:p:5112-:d:297971
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/24/5112/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/24/5112/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Keegan, T.H.M. & Kurian, A.W. & Gali, K. & Tao, L. & Lichtensztajn, D.Y. & Hershman, D.L. & Habel, L.A. & Caan, B.J. & Gomez, S.L., 2015. "Racial/ethnic and socioeconomic differences in short-term breast cancer survival among women in an integrated health system," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 105(5), pages 938-946.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Angel G. Ortiz & Daniel Wiese & Kristen A. Sorice & Minhhuyen Nguyen & Evelyn T. González & Kevin A. Henry & Shannon M. Lynch, 2020. "Liver Cancer Incidence and Area-Level Geographic Disparities in Pennsylvania—A Geo-Additive Approach," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(20), pages 1-20, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:16:y:2019:i:24:p:5112-:d:297971. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.