Investigating the knowledge of and public attitudes towards genetic testing within the Visegrad countries: a cross-sectional study
Jazyk angličtina Země Velká Británie, Anglie Médium electronic
Typ dokumentu časopisecké články
Grantová podpora
GINOP-2.3.2-15-2016-00005
European Regional Development Fund
Grant agreement number: 645740
H2020 Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions
PubMed
32912246
PubMed Central
PMC7488256
DOI
10.1186/s12889-020-09473-z
PII: 10.1186/s12889-020-09473-z
Knihovny.cz E-zdroje
- Klíčová slova
- Attitudes, Citizens, Genetic testing, Public, Visegrad countries,
- MeSH
- dospělí MeSH
- genetické testování * MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- postoj * MeSH
- průřezové studie MeSH
- Check Tag
- dospělí MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH
- Geografické názvy
- Česká republika MeSH
- Maďarsko MeSH
- Polsko MeSH
- Slovenská republika MeSH
BACKGROUND: Previous studies have investigated various factors that can determine the attitudes of the citizens considering genetic testing. However, none of them investigated how these attitudes may differ between the Visegrad countries. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study a questionnaire developed by Dutch researchers was translated and used in Hungary, Slovakia, Czechia and Poland. In each country 1000 adult citizens were asked on the topics of personal benefits regarding genetic tests, genetic determinism, and finally, the availability and usage of genetic testing. Multivariate robust regression model was created including several possible influencing factors (such as age, sex, education, marital status, religiousness, and having a genetic test within the nuclear family) to identify the possible differences between the four countries. RESULTS: The Hungarian citizens had the most positive opinion on the personal benefits of genetic testing followed by the Czech, Slovak and Polish. All differences were significant in this regard. Considering genetic determinism, the Slovak citizens had a significantly firmer belief in this issue compared to the Hungarians. No other significant differences were observed in this domain. On the topic of the availability and use of genetic testing the Hungarian citizens had the most accepting opinion among the four countries, followed by the Czech citizens. In this domain the Polish and Slovak answers did not differ significantly from each other. CONCLUSIONS: Significant differences were observed even when considering various confounding effects. As the underlying reasons for these discrepancies are unknown, future studies should investigate this enigma among the four countries.
Department of Behavioural Sciences Faculty of Medicine University of Debrecen Debrecen Hungary
Faculty of Public Health University of Debrecen Debrecen Hungary
MTA DE Public Health Research Group University of Debrecen Debrecen Hungary
Zobrazit více v PubMed
Botkin JR, Teutsch SM, Kaye CI, Hayes M, Haddow JE, Bradley LA, et al. Outcomes of interest in evidence-based evaluations of genetic tests. Genet Med. 2010;12(4):228–35. PubMed
Dombradi V, Pitini E, van El CG, Jani A, Cornel M, Villari P, et al. Value-based genomic screening: exploring genomic screening for chronic diseases using triple value principles. BMC Health Serv Res. 2019;19(1):823. PubMed PMC
Boccia S, McKee M, Adany R, Boffetta P, Burton H, Cambon-Thomsen A, et al. Beyond public health genomics: proposals from an international working group. Eur J Public Health. 2014;24(6):877–879. PubMed PMC
Biro K, Dombradi V, Jani A, Boruzs K, Gray M. Creating a common language: defining individualized, personalized and precision prevention in public health. J Public Health (Oxf) 2018;40(4):e552–e5e9. PubMed
Turnbull C, Sud A, Houlston RS. Cancer genetics, precision prevention and a call to action. Nat Genet. 2018;50(9):1212–1218. PubMed PMC
Vermeulen E, Henneman L, van El CG, Cornel MC. Public attitudes towards preventive genomics and personal interest in genetic testing to prevent disease: a survey study. Eur J Public Health. 2014;24(5):768–775. PubMed
Allport GW. The composition of political attitudes. Am J Sociol. 1929;35(2):220–238.
Eagly AH, Chaiken S. The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers; 1993.
Ajzen I. Attitudes, personality and behavior. Milton Keynes: Open University Press; 1988.
Henneman L, Timmermans DR, Van Der Wal G. Public attitudes toward genetic testing: perceived benefits and objections. Genet Test. 2006;10(2):139–145. PubMed
Ishiyama I, Nagai A, Muto K, Tamakoshi A, Kokado M, Mimura K, et al. Relationship between public attitudes toward genomic studies related to medicine and their level of genomic literacy in Japan. Am J Med Genet A. 2008;146A(13):1696–1706. PubMed
Gaskell G, Allum N, Bauer M, Durant J, Allansdottir A, Bonfadelli H, et al. Biotechnology and the European public. Nat Biotechnol. 2000;18(9):935–938. PubMed
Michie S, di Lorenzo E, Lane R, Armstrong K, Sanderson S. Genetic information leaflets: influencing attitudes towards genetic testing. Genet Med. 2004;6(4):219–225. PubMed
Sanderson SC, Wardle J, Michie S. The effects of a genetic information leaflet on public attitudes towards genetic testing. Public Underst Sci. 2005;14(2):213–224. PubMed
Rosenstock IM. Historical origins of the health belief model. Health Educ Monogr. 1974;2(4):328–336. PubMed
Condit C. What is 'public opinion' about genetics? Nat Rev Genet. 2001;2(10):811–815. PubMed
Jallinoja P, Aro AR. Does knowledge make a difference? The association between knowledge about genes and attitudes toward gene tests. J Health Commun. 2000;5(1):29–39. PubMed
Persky S, Kaphingst KA, Condit CM, McBride CM. Assessing hypothetical scenario methodology in genetic susceptibility testing analog studies: a quantitative review. Genet Med. 2007;9(11):727–738. PubMed PMC
Sturgis P, Brunton-Smith I, Fife-Schaw C. Public attitudes to genomic science: an experiment in information provision. Public Underst Sci. 2010;19(2):166–180. PubMed
Carver RB, Castera J, Gericke N, Evangelista NAM, El-Hani CN. Young adults' belief in genetic determinism, and knowledge and attitudes towards modern genetics and genomics: the PUGGS questionnaire. PLoS One. 2017;12(1):e0169808. PubMed PMC
Condit CM. Public attitudes and beliefs about genetics. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet. 2010;11:339–359. PubMed
Barnett J, Cooper H, Senior V. Belief in public efficacy, trust, and attitudes toward modern genetic science. Risk Anal. 2007;27(4):921–933. PubMed
Sankar P. Genetic privacy. Annu Rev Med. 2003;54:393–407. PubMed
Parrott R, Silk K, Weiner J, Condit C, Harris T, Bernhardt J. Deriving lay models of uncertainty about genes' role in illness causation to guide communication about human genetics. J Commun. 2004;54(1):105–122.
Henneman L, Vermeulen E, van El CG, Claassen L, Timmermans DR, Cornel MC. Public attitudes towards genetic testing revisited: comparing opinions between 2002 and 2010. Eur J Hum Genet. 2013;21(8):793–799. PubMed PMC
Gaskell G, Stares S, Allansdottir A, Allum N, Castro P, Esmer Y, et al. Europeans and biotechnology in 2010. Winds of change? A report to the European Commission’s directorate-general for research. 2010.
Bergier J, Tsos A, Popovych D, Bergier B, Niznikowska E, Acs P, et al. Level of and factors determining physical activity in students in Ukraine and the Visegrad countries. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018;15(8):1738. PubMed PMC
Bosakova L, Rosicova K, Filakovska Bobakova D, Rosic M, Dzurova D, Pikhart H, et al. Mortality in the Visegrad countries from the perspective of socioeconomic inequalities. Int J Public Health. 2019;64(3):365–376. PubMed
Nemcova J, Hlinkova E, Farsky I, Ziakova K, Jarosova D, Zelenikova R, et al. Quality of life in patients with diabetic foot ulcer in Visegrad countries. J Clin Nurs. 2017;26(9–10):1245–1256. PubMed
Bergier B, Bergier J, Niznikowska E, Junger J, Salonna F, Acs P, et al. Differences in physical activity and nutritionand silhouette-related behaviours in male and female students in selected European countries. Ann Agric Environ Med AAEM. 2018;25(1):176–181. PubMed
European National Panels. https://www.nationalpanel.eu. Accessed 16 Mar 2020.
Henneman L, Timmermans DR, van der Wal G. Public experiences, knowledge and expectations about medical genetics and the use of genetic information. Community Genet. 2004;7(1):33–43. PubMed
Hambleton RK, Kanjee A. Increasing the validity of cross-cultural assessments: use of improved methods for test adaptations. Eur J Psychol Assess. 1995;11(3):147–157.
Bland JM, Altman DG. Cronbach's alpha. BMJ. 1997;314(7080):572. PubMed PMC
Bentler PM. Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychol Bull. 1990;107(2):238–246. PubMed
Hu LT, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Modeling. 1999;6:1–55.
Fabrigar LR, MacCallum RC, Wegener DT, Strahan EJ. Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychol Methods. 1999;4(3):272–299.
Lee PH, Burstyn I. Identification of confounder in epidemiologic data contaminated by measurement error in covariates. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2016;16:54. PubMed PMC
Aro AR, Hakonen A, Hietala M, Lonnqvist J, Niemela P, Peltonen L, et al. Acceptance of genetic testing in a general population: age, education and gender differences. Patient Educ Couns. 1997;32(1–2):41–49. PubMed
Morren M, Rijken M, Baanders AN, Bensing J. Perceived genetic knowledge, attitudes towards genetic testing, and the relationship between these among patients with a chronic disease. Patient Educ Couns. 2007;65(2):197–204. PubMed
Maughan T. The promise and the hype of 'Personalised Medicine'. New Bioeth. 2017;23(1):13–20. PubMed PMC
Bunnik EM, Janssens AC, Schermer MH. Personal utility in genomic testing: is there such a thing? J Med Ethics. 2015;41(4):322–326. PubMed
Gray M, Lagerberg T, Dombradi V. Equity and value in 'precision medicine'. New Bioeth. 2017;23(1):87–94. PubMed
Seidel MG. Baby genome screening: paving the way to genetic discrimination? BMJ. 2017;358:j3294. PubMed
Middleton A, Marks P, Bruce A, Protheroe-Davies LK, King C, Claber O, et al. The role of genetic counsellors in genomic healthcare in the United Kingdom: a statement by the Association of Genetic Nurses and Counsellors. Eur J Hum Genet. 2017;25(6):659–661. PubMed PMC