IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/jriskr/v21y2018i2p129-166.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Healthcare professionals’ perceptions of risk in the context of genetic testing for the prediction of chronic disease: a qualitative metasynthesis

Author

Listed:
  • Marie Falahee
  • Gwenda Simons
  • Karim Raza
  • Rebecca J. Stack

Abstract

Advances in genomic technologies and a growing trend towards stratified and preventive approaches to medicine mean that increasing numbers of individuals may have access to information about their genetic makeup, and their risk of developing diseases. This is likely to impact on healthcare professionals involved in the delivery of genetic tests, or in supporting patients who are affected by a disease with a genetic risk factor. It is therefore important to understand healthcare professionals’ perceptions about providing these services, and how they feel about communicating information about genetic risk to patients. This paper provides a systematic review and metasynthesis of qualitative research exploring healthcare professionals’ perceptions of genetic risk in the context of predictive genetic testing for chronic disease. Healthcare professionals expressed a range of reservations about the utility of predictive testing in this context. Professionals judged patients’ understanding of risk information to be limited and subject to bias and a range of sociocultural influences. Concerns about the psychosocial impact of genetic risk information were frequently cited, both in relation to individual patients and the wider impact on their families and communities. The need for provision of multidisciplinary support was described. The concept of responsibility was also an important theme. Healthcare professionals recognized the responsibility that accompanies risk knowledge, and that ultimately this responsibility lies with the patient, not the provider. Our analysis suggests that professionals’ evaluation of the utility of predictive genetic testing is influenced not only by resource deficits, but may also be interpreted as a response to challenging ethical and social issues associated with genetic risk, that are not well aligned with current medical practice.

Suggested Citation

  • Marie Falahee & Gwenda Simons & Karim Raza & Rebecca J. Stack, 2018. "Healthcare professionals’ perceptions of risk in the context of genetic testing for the prediction of chronic disease: a qualitative metasynthesis," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(2), pages 129-166, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:jriskr:v:21:y:2018:i:2:p:129-166
    DOI: 10.1080/13669877.2016.1153503
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/13669877.2016.1153503
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/13669877.2016.1153503?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Miller, Fiona Alice & Giacomini, Mita & Ahern, Catherine, 2008. "Contending visions in the evolution of genetic medicine: The case of cancer genetic services in Ontario, Canada," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 152-160, July.
    2. Salmon, Peter & Hall, George M, 2003. "Patient empowerment and control: a psychological discourse in the service of medicine," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 57(10), pages 1969-1980, November.
    3. Will, Catherine M. & Armstrong, David & Marteau, Theresa M., 2010. "Genetic unexceptionalism: Clinician accounts of genetic testing for familial hypercholesterolaemia," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 71(5), pages 910-917, September.
    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. Mendick, Nicola & Young, Bridget & Holcombe, Christopher & Salmon, Peter, 2010. "The ethics of responsibility and ownership in decision-making about treatment for breast cancer: Triangulation of consultation with patient and surgeon perspectives," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 1904-1911, June.
    2. O'Cathain, Alicia & Goode, Jackie & Luff, Donna & Strangleman, Tim & Hanlon, Gerard & Greatbatch, David, 2005. "Does NHS Direct empower patients?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 61(8), pages 1761-1771, October.
    3. Lucas, Henry, 2015. "New technology and illness self-management: Potential relevance for resource-poor populations in Asia," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 145-153.
    4. Aujoulat, Isabelle & Marcolongo, Renzo & Bonadiman, Leopoldo & Deccache, Alain, 2008. "Reconsidering patient empowerment in chronic illness: A critique of models of self-efficacy and bodily control," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 66(5), pages 1228-1239, March.
    5. Marit Solbjør & Marit By Rise & Heidi Westerlund & Aslak Steinsbekk, 2013. "Patient participation in mental healthcare: When is it difficult? A qualitative study of users and providers in a mental health hospital in Norway," International Journal of Social Psychiatry, , vol. 59(2), pages 107-113, March.
    6. Turrini, Mauro & Bourgain, Catherine, 2022. "Genomic susceptibility in practice: The regulatory trajectory of non-rare thrombophilia (NRT) genetic tests in the clinical management of venous thrombo-embolism (VTE)," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 304(C).
    7. Kinderman, Peter & Setzu, Erika & Lobban, Fiona & Salmon, Peter, 2006. "Illness beliefs in schizophrenia," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 63(7), pages 1900-1911, October.
    8. Wright, Sarah & Porteous, Mary & Stirling, Diane & Young, Oliver & Gourley, Charlie & Hallowell, Nina, 2019. "Negotiating jurisdictional boundaries in response to new genetic possibilities in breast cancer care: The creation of an ‘oncogenetic taskscape’," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 225(C), pages 26-33.
    9. Chinn, Deborah, 2011. "Critical health literacy: A review and critical analysis," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 73(1), pages 60-67, July.
    10. Thille, Patricia & Ward, Natalie & Russell, Grant, 2014. "Self-management support in primary care: Enactments, disruptions, and conversational consequences," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 97-105.
    11. Lemire, Marc & Sicotte, Claude & Paré, Guy, 2008. "Internet use and the logics of personal empowerment in health," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(1), pages 130-140, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:taf:jriskr:v:21:y:2018:i:2:p:129-166. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RJRR20 .

    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.