Aims: To explore patients’ understanding and experiences of familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) and the significance of the hereditary aspect of the condition. Methods: A qualitative study undertaken at a large lipid clinic in the north of England, involving semistructured interviews with 31 patients with definite FH, aged 18 years or over, who had attended the clinic for at least 6 months. Results: Participants’ explanations of FH and coronary heart disease (CHD) were not focused on heredity. FH was regarded as controllable and CHD as avoidable. Many participants had apparently been unaware of a family history of CHD or hypercholesterolemia prior to their own diagnosis. It was unclear how much information was communicated among relatives. While the testing of children was generally not viewed as a problem, there was some concern about young people worrying about or resisting diagnosis. Conclusion: The study suggests that people with FH do not view genes/heredity as having a deterministic role in causing heart disease and that FH is largely seen as unproblematic in the long term. Nevertheless, particular support may be needed when diagnosing children and young adults. The communication of information in families is unpredictable and this has important implications for the organization of screening programs.

Keywords:
Hypercholesterolemia, familial, Qualitative analysis, Illness perceptions, Patient experiences
1.
Goldstein JL, Hobbs HH, Brown MS: Familial hypercholesterolaemia; in Scriver CR, Beaudet AL, Sly WS, Valle D (eds): The Metabolic and Molecular Bases of Inherited Disease, ed 8. New York, McGraw Hill, 2001, pp 2863–2913.
2.
Austin MA, Hutter CM, Zimmern RL, Humphries SE: Genetic causes of monogenic heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia: a HuGE prevalence review. Am J Epidemiol 2004;160:407–420.
3.
Hobbs HH, Brown MS, Goldstein JL: Molecular genetics of the LDL receptor gene in familial hypercholesterolemia. Hum Mutat 1992;1:445–466.
4.
Day INM, Whittall RA, O’Dell SD, Haddad L, Bolla MK, Gudnason V, Humphries SE: Spectrum of LDL receptor mutations in heterozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia. Hum Mutat 1997;10:116–127.
5.
Heath KE, Gahan M, Whittall RA, Humphries SE: Low-density lipoprotein receptor gene (LDLR) world-wide website in familial hypercholesterolaemia: update, new features and mutation analysis. Atherosclerosis 2001;154:243–246.
6.
Scientific Steering Committee on Behalf of the Simon Broome Register Group: Risk of fatal coronary heart disease in familial hypercholesterolaemia. BMJ 1991;303:893–896.
7.
Marks D, Thorogood M, Neil S, Humphries S, Neil A: Cascade screening for familial hypercholesterolaemia: implications of a pilot study for national screening programmes. J Med Screen 2006;13:156–159.
8.
Neil HAW, Hawkins MM, Durrington PN, Betteridge DJ, Capps NE, Humphries SE: Non-coronary heart disease mortality and risk of fatal cancer in patients with treated heterozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia: a prospective registry study. Atherosclerosis 2005;179:293–297.
9.
Mortality in treated heterozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia: implications for clinical management. Scientific Steering Committee on Behalf of the Simon Broome Register Group. Atherosclerosis 1999;142:105–113.
10.
Bhatnagar B, Morgan J, Siddiq S, Mackness MI, Miller JP, Durrington PN: Outcome of case finding among relatives of patients with known heterozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia. BMJ 2000;321:1497–1500.
11.
Marks D, Wonderling D, Thorogood M, Lambert H, Humphries S, Neil H: Screening for hypercholesterolaemia versus case finding for familial hypercholesterolaemia: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Technol Assess 2000;4:1–123.
12.
Umans-Eckenhausen MAW, Defesche JC, Sijbrands EJG, Scheerder RLJM, Kastelein JPJ: Review of first 5 years of screening for familial hypercholesterolaemia in the Netherlands. Lancet 2001;357:165–168.
13.
Hadfield SG, Humphries SE: Implementation of cascade testing for the detection of familial hypercholesterolaemia. Curr Opin Lipidol 2005;16:428–433.
14.
Cm 5791-II. Our Inheritance, Our Future: Realising the Potential of Genetics in the NHS. London, TSO, 2003.
15.
Humphries SE, Galton D, Nicholls P: Genetic testing for familial hypercholesterolaemia: practical and ethical issues. Q J Med 1997;90:169–181.
16.
Novas C, Rose N: Genetic risk and the birth of the somatic individual. Econ Soc 2000;29:485–513.
17.
Hallowell N: Doing the right thing: genetic risk and responsibility. Sociol Health Illness 1999;21:597–621.
18.
Duster T: Backdoor to Eugenics. London, Routledge, 1990.
19.
Finkler K: The kin in the gene: the medicalization of family and kinship in American society. Curr Anthropol 2001;42:235–263.
20.
Fullerton SM: Invited comment on M. Lock’s ‘The eclipse of the gene and the return to divination’. Curr Anthropol 2005;46:S62–S63.
21.
Sherwin S: BRCA testing: ethics lessons for the new genetics. Clin Invest Med 2004;27:19–22.
22.
Lippman A: Prenatal genetic testing and screening: constructing needs and reinforcing inequities. Am J Law Med 1991;XVII:15–50.
23.
Lippman A: Led (astray) by genetic maps: the cartography of the human genome and health care. Soc Sci Med 1992;35:1469–1476.
24.
Tonstad S: Familial hypercholesterolaemia: a pilot study of parents’ and children’s concerns. Acta Paediatr 1996;85:1307–1313.
25.
Tonstad S, Novik TS, Vandvik IH: Psychosocial function during treatment for familial hypercholesterolemia. Pediatrics 1996;98:249–255.
26.
Andersen LK, Jensen HK, Juul S, Faergeman O: Patients’ attitudes toward detection of heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia. Arch Intern Med 1997;157:553–560.
27.
Hollman G, Gullberg M, Ek AC, Eriksson M, Olsson AG: Quality of life in patients with familial hypercholesterolaemia. J Intern Med 2002;251:331–337.
28.
Hollman G, Olsson AG, Ek AC: Familial hypercholesterolaemia and quality of life in family members. Prev Med 2003;36:569–574.
29.
De Jongh S, Kerckhoffs MC, Grootenhuis MA, Bakker HD, Heymans HAS, Last BF: Quality of life, anxiety and concerns among statin-treated children with familial hypercholesterolaemia and their parents. Acta Paediatr 2003;92:1096–1101.
30.
Umans-Eckenhausen MAW, Defesche JC, Van Dam MJ, Kastelein JPJ: Long-term compliance with lipid-lowering medication after genetic screening for familial hypercholesterolaemia. Arch Intern Med 2003;163:65–68.
31.
Van Maarle MC, Stouthard MEA, Bonsel GJ: Quality of life in a family based genetic cascade screening programme for familial hypercholesterolaemia: a longitudinal study among participants. J Med Genet 2003;40:e3.
32.
Senior V, Marteau TM, Peters TJ: Will genetic testing for predisposition for disease result in fatalism? A qualitative study of parents responses to neonatal screening for familial hypercholesterolaemia. Soc Sci Med 1999;48:1857–1860.
33.
Van Maarle MC, Stouthard MEA, Bonsel GJ: Risk perception of participants in a family-based genetic screening program on familial hypercholesterolemia. Am J Med Genet 2003;116A:136–143.
34.
Marteau T, Senior V, Humphries SE, et al: Psychological impact of genetic testing for familial hypercholesterolemia within a previously aware population: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Med Genet 2004;128A:285–293.
35.
Lambert H, Rose H: Disembodied knowledge? Making sense of medical science; in Irwin A, Wynne B (eds): Misunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1996, pp 65–83.
36.
Senior V, Smith JA, Michie S, Marteau TM: Making sense of risk: an interpretative phenomenological analysis of vulnerability to heart disease. J Health Psychol 2002;7:157–168.
37.
Agård A, Bolmsjö IA, Hermerén G, Wahlström J: Familial hypercholesterolemia: ethical, practical and psychological problems from the perspective of patients. Patient Educ Couns 2005;57:162–167.
38.
Frich JC, Ose L, Malterud K, Fugelli P: Perceived vulnerability to heart disease in patients with familial hypercholesterolemia: a qualitative study. Ann Fam Med 2006;4:198–204.
39.
Hunt K, Davison C, Emslie C, Ford G: Are perceptions of a family history of heart disease related to health-related attitudes and behaviour? Health Educ Res 2000;15:131–143.
40.
Hunt K, Emslie C, Watt G: Lay constructions of a family history of heart disease: potential for misunderstandings in the clinical encounter? Lancet 2001;357:1168–1171.
41.
Watt G, McConnachie A, Upton M, Emslie C, Hunt K: How accurately do adult sons and daughters report and perceive parental deaths from coronary disease? J Epidemiol Community Health 2000;54:859–863.
42.
Murphy E, Dingwall R: Qualitative Methods and Health Policy Research. New York, Aldine De Gruyter, 2003.
43.
Hammersley M, Atkinson P: Ethnography: Principles in Practice. London, Routledge, 1995.
44.
Blaxter M: Whose fault is it? People’s own conceptions of the reasons for health inequalities. Soc Sci Med 1997;44:747–756.
45.
Weiner K: The tenacity of the coronary candidate: how people with familial hypercholesterolaemia construct raised cholesterol and coronary heart disease. Health, submitted.
46.
Davison C, Davey Smith G, Frankel S: Lay epidemiology and the prevention paradox: the implications of coronary candidacy for health education. Sociol Health Illness 1991;13:1–19.
47.
d’Agincourt-Canning L: Experiences of genetic risk: disclosure and the gendering of responsibility. Bioethics 2001;15:231–247.
48.
Forrest K, Simpson S, Wilson B, van Teijlingen E, McKee L, Haites N, Matthews E: To tell or not to tell: barriers and facilitators in family communication about genetic risk. Clin Genet 2003;64:317–326.
49.
Green J, Richards M, Murton F, Statham H, Hallowell: Family communication and genetic counseling: the case of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. J Genet Couns 1997;6:45–60.
50.
Bates B, Templeton A, Achter P, Harris T, Condit C: What does ‘a gene for heart disease’ mean? A focus group study of public understandings of genetic risk factors. Am J Med Genet 2003;119A:156–161.
51.
Lawton J: Colonising the future: temporal perceptions and health-relevant behaviours across the adult lifecourse. Sociol Health Illness 2002;24:714–733.
52.
Peterson SK: The role of the family in genetic testing: theoretical perspectives, current knowledge, and future directions. Health Educ Behav 2005;32:627–639.
© 2008 S. Karger AG, Basel
2008
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.