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

Department of Health Systems Management and Quality Management for Health Care Faculty of Public Health University of Debrecen Debrecen Hungary

Department of Public Health and Epidemiology 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