Women's perception, attitudes, and intended behavior towards predictive epigenetic risk testing for female cancers in 5 European countries: a cross-sectional online survey.
Adult
Aged
Breast Neoplasms
/ diagnosis
Cross-Sectional Studies
Early Detection of Cancer
/ psychology
Endometrial Neoplasms
/ diagnosis
Epigenesis, Genetic
Europe
Female
Genetic Predisposition to Disease
Genetic Testing
/ methods
Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice
Humans
Intention
Middle Aged
Neoplasms
/ diagnosis
Ovarian Neoplasms
/ diagnosis
Predictive Value of Tests
Uterine Cervical Neoplasms
/ diagnosis
Attitudes
European women
Female cancer risk
Intentions
Predictive epigenetic testing
Journal
BMC public health
ISSN: 1471-2458
Titre abrégé: BMC Public Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968562
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
30 May 2019
30 May 2019
Historique:
received:
19
11
2018
accepted:
16
05
2019
entrez:
1
6
2019
pubmed:
31
5
2019
medline:
25
7
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Epigenetic markers might be used for risk-stratifying cancer screening and prevention programs in the future. Although the clinical utility of consequent epigenetic tests for risk stratification is yet to be proven, successful adoption into clinical practice also requires the public's acceptance of such tests. This cross-sectional online survey study sought to learn for the first time about European women's perceptions, attitudes, and intended behavior regarding a predictive epigenetic test for female cancer (breast, ovarian, cervical, and endometrial) risks. 1675 women (40-75 years) from five European countries (Czech Republic, Germany, United Kingdom, Italy, Sweden), drawn from online panels by the survey sampling company Harris Interactive (Germany), participated in an online survey where they first received online leaflet information on a predictive epigenetic test for female cancer risks and were subsequently queried by an online questionnaire on their desire to know their female cancer risks, their perception of the benefit-to-harm ratio of an epigenetic test predicting female cancer risks, reasons in favor and disfavor of taking such a test, and their intention to take a predictive epigenetic test for female cancer risks. Most women desired information on each of their female cancer risks, 56.6% (95% CI: 54.2-59.0) thought the potential benefits outweighed potential harms, and 75% (72.0-77.8) intended to take a predictive epigenetic test for female cancer risks if freely available. Results varied considerably by country with women from Germany and the Czech Republic being more reserved about this new form of testing than women from the other three European countries. The main reason cited in favor of a predictive epigenetic test for female cancer risks was its potential to guide healthcare strategies and lifestyle changes in the future, and in its disfavor was that it may increase cancer worry and coerce unintended lifestyle changes and healthcare interventions. A successful introduction of predictive epigenetic tests for cancer risks will require a balanced and transparent communication of the benefit-to-harm ratio of healthcare pathways resulting from such tests in order to curb unjustified expectations and at the same time to prevent unjustified concerns.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Epigenetic markers might be used for risk-stratifying cancer screening and prevention programs in the future. Although the clinical utility of consequent epigenetic tests for risk stratification is yet to be proven, successful adoption into clinical practice also requires the public's acceptance of such tests. This cross-sectional online survey study sought to learn for the first time about European women's perceptions, attitudes, and intended behavior regarding a predictive epigenetic test for female cancer (breast, ovarian, cervical, and endometrial) risks.
METHODS
METHODS
1675 women (40-75 years) from five European countries (Czech Republic, Germany, United Kingdom, Italy, Sweden), drawn from online panels by the survey sampling company Harris Interactive (Germany), participated in an online survey where they first received online leaflet information on a predictive epigenetic test for female cancer risks and were subsequently queried by an online questionnaire on their desire to know their female cancer risks, their perception of the benefit-to-harm ratio of an epigenetic test predicting female cancer risks, reasons in favor and disfavor of taking such a test, and their intention to take a predictive epigenetic test for female cancer risks.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Most women desired information on each of their female cancer risks, 56.6% (95% CI: 54.2-59.0) thought the potential benefits outweighed potential harms, and 75% (72.0-77.8) intended to take a predictive epigenetic test for female cancer risks if freely available. Results varied considerably by country with women from Germany and the Czech Republic being more reserved about this new form of testing than women from the other three European countries. The main reason cited in favor of a predictive epigenetic test for female cancer risks was its potential to guide healthcare strategies and lifestyle changes in the future, and in its disfavor was that it may increase cancer worry and coerce unintended lifestyle changes and healthcare interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
A successful introduction of predictive epigenetic tests for cancer risks will require a balanced and transparent communication of the benefit-to-harm ratio of healthcare pathways resulting from such tests in order to curb unjustified expectations and at the same time to prevent unjustified concerns.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31146730
doi: 10.1186/s12889-019-6994-8
pii: 10.1186/s12889-019-6994-8
pmc: PMC6543792
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
667Subventions
Organisme : Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme
ID : 634570
Organisme : Department of Health NIHR Biomedical Research Centres funding scheme
ID : n.n.
Références
J Gen Intern Med. 1999 Oct;14(10):633-42
pubmed: 10571710
JAMA. 2000 Jun 14;283(22):2975-8
pubmed: 10865276
Z Arztl Fortbild Qualitatssich. 2003 Feb;97(1):53-7
pubmed: 12669690
J Gen Intern Med. 2003 Nov;18(11):948-59
pubmed: 14687282
Med Decis Making. 2007 Sep-Oct;27(5):638-54
pubmed: 17873250
Public Health Genomics. 2010;13(5):292-300
pubmed: 19864872
Patient Educ Couns. 2011 Aug;84(2):251-6
pubmed: 20719463
PLoS One. 2010 Oct 19;5(10):e13473
pubmed: 20976053
Med Decis Making. 2011 May-Jun;31(3):386-94
pubmed: 21191123
Cogn Sci. 2007 May 6;31(3):415-39
pubmed: 21635303
BMJ. 2011 Jun 02;342:d3193
pubmed: 21636633
JAMA. 2011 Jun 8;305(22):2295-303
pubmed: 21642681
J Gen Intern Med. 2011 Dec;26(12):1411-7
pubmed: 21792695
Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. 2011 Nov;54(11):1197-210
pubmed: 22015792
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2012 Jan 18;104(2):125-32
pubmed: 22228146
Ann Intern Med. 2012 Mar 6;156(5):340-9
pubmed: 22393129
Vaccine. 2012 May 28;30(25):3747-56
pubmed: 22421558
BMJ. 2012 Aug 02;345:e5132
pubmed: 22859787
Eur J Hum Genet. 2013 Aug;21(8):793-9
pubmed: 23249955
BMJ Open. 2013 Apr 22;3(4):null
pubmed: 23610383
JAMA Intern Med. 2013 Dec 9-23;173(22):2086-7
pubmed: 24145597
Vaccine. 2014 Mar 10;32(12):1388-93
pubmed: 24486360
Int J Cancer. 2015 Mar 1;136(5):E359-86
pubmed: 25220842
Genet Med. 2015 Oct;17(10):789-95
pubmed: 25569441
Breast. 2015 Jun;24(3):237-41
pubmed: 25708717
Curr HIV Res. 2015;13(5):369-80
pubmed: 26149159
Psychol Sci Public Interest. 2007 Nov;8(2):53-96
pubmed: 26161749
Br J Cancer. 2015 Sep 29;113(7):1086-93
pubmed: 26291059
BMC Res Notes. 2015 Sep 03;8:404
pubmed: 26336075
Lancet. 2016 Mar 5;387(10022):945-956
pubmed: 26707054
Genet Med. 2016 Dec;18(12):1295-1302
pubmed: 27253734
PLoS One. 2017 Aug 23;12(8):e0183024
pubmed: 28832633
Recent Results Cancer Res. 2018;210:207-221
pubmed: 28924688
BMJ. 2017 Dec 5;359:j5224
pubmed: 29208760
Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2018 May;15(5):292-309
pubmed: 29485132
MDM Policy Pract. 2016 Aug 23;1(1):2381468316665365
pubmed: 30288405
J Gen Intern Med. 1993 Oct;8(10):543-8
pubmed: 8271086
Ann Intern Med. 1998 Jan 1;128(1):72-3
pubmed: 9424990
BMJ. 1998 Jul 25;317(7153):263-4
pubmed: 9677220