Genetic testing and the relationship between specific and general self-efficacy

The study examined the extent to which variations in health-specific self-efficacy could affect general self-efficacy. In a repeated measures design, 300 participants were administered an efficacy questionnaire, before and after an alleged news report, aimed at increasing or decreasing self-efficacy over genetic-testing decision making. The results found that self-efficacy over testing was significantly reduced after reading the negative news report in those participants who felt personal efficacy over testing decisions was important. Levels of general self-efficacy were also significantly decreased. The findings suggest that being denied control over a specific area of self-efficacy can have a wider impact, with a lack of perceived efficacy over testing decision making adversely impacting on levels of general well-being. The wider implications of this generalization effect and the processes involved in efficacy generalization are discussed.

Family communication, genetic testing and colonoscopy screening in hereditary non-polyposis colon cancer: a qualitative study

Objective: Genetic testing and colonoscopy is recommended for people with a strong history of colorectal cancer (CRC). However, families must communicate so that all members are aware of the risk. The study aimed to explore the factors influencing family communication about genetic risk and colonoscopy among people with a strong family history of CRC who attended a genetic clinic with a view to having a genetic test for hereditary non-polyposis colon cancer (HNPCC).

What do men understand about lifetime risk following genetic testing?:The effect of context and numeracy.

Genetic testing for gene mutations associated with specific cancers provides an opportunity for early detection, surveillance, and intervention (Smith, Cokkinides, & Brawley, 2008). Lifetime risk estimates provided by genetic testing refer to the risk of developing a specific disease within one's lifetime, and evidence suggests that this is important for the medical choices people make, as well as their future family and financial plans. The present studies tested whether adult men understand the lifetime risks of prostate cancer informed by genetic testing. In 2 experiments, adult men were asked to interpret the lifetime risk information provided in statements about risks of prostate cancer. Statement format was manipulated such that the most appropriate interpretation of risk statements referred to an absolute risk of cancer in experiment 1 and a relative risk in experiment 2. Experiment 1 revealed that few men correctly interpreted the lifetime risks of cancer when these refer to an absolute risk of cancer, and numeracy levels positively predicted correct responding. The proportion of correct responses was greatly improved in experiment 2 when the most appropriate interpretation of risk statements referred instead to a relative rather than an absolute risk, and numeracy levels were less involved. Understanding of lifetime risk information is often poor because individuals incorrectly believe that these refer to relative rather than absolute risks of cancer.