Objective: Using E.M. Rogers’s knowledge framework as presented in his seminal innovation-decision process, this paper aims to present an overview of the general public’s knowledge of genetics. It also makes a first attempt to examine the statistical validity of this framework. Methods: A sample of 2,500 members of the Dutch general population was presented with a questionnaire containing measures of 3 increasingly complex forms of knowledge: awareness knowledge, (practical) how-to knowledge and (theoretical) principles knowledge. Results: The general public seems to be moderately aware of genetic risk factors for multifactorial diseases. In general, how-to knowledge seems fair, whereas principles knowledge is limited and superficial. Additional analyses provided empirical evidence for the distinction between awareness knowledge, how-to knowledge and principles knowledge. Conclusion: The innovation-decision process, and specifically Rogers’s knowledge framework, provides a useful tool for public education in genetics. Future research may build upon and extend our findings by examining the persuasion, decision, implementation, and possibly the confirmation stages of the innovation-decision process concerning genetic education.

Keywords:
General population, Genetic risk factors, Knowledge framework, Public education, Public understanding of genetics
1.
Collins FS, Green ED, Guttmacher AE, Guyer MS: A vision for the future of genomics research. Nature 2003;422:835–847.
2.
National Institutes for Health: Human Genome Project – Fact sheet, 2009.
3.
Burke W, Atkins D, Gwinn M, Guttmacher A, Haddow J, Lau J, Palomaki G, Press N, Richards CS, Wideroff L, Wiesner GL: Genetic test evaluation: information needs of clinicians, policy makers, and the public. Am J Epidemiol 2002;156:311–318.
4.
Wang C, Bowen DJ, Kardia SL: Research and practice opportunities at the intersection of health education, health behavior, and genomics. Health Educ Behav 2005;32:686–701.
5.
Smerecnik CM, Mesters I, De Vries NK, De Vries H: Educating the general public about multifactorial genetic disease: applying a theory-based framework to understand current public knowledge. Genet Med 2008;10:251–258.
6.
Rogers EM: Diffusion of Innovations, ed 5 (rev). New York, Free Press, 2003.
7.
Geibert RC: Using diffusion of innovation concepts to enhance implementation of an electronic health record to support evidence-based practice. Nurs Adm Q 2006;30:203–210.
8.
Kautz K, Larsen EA: Diffusion theory and practice. Disseminating quality management and software process improvement innovations. Inf Technol People 2000;13:11–26.
9.
Porter CE, Donthu N: Using the technology acceptance model to explain how attitudes determine Internet usage: the role of perceived access barriers and demographics. J Bus Res 2006;59:999–1007.
10.
Weingardt KR, Villafranca SW: Translating research into practice: the role of web-based education. J Technol Hum Serv 2005;23:259–273.
11.
Jallinoja P, Aro AR: Does knowledge make a difference? The association between knowledge about genes and attitudes toward gene tests. J Health Commun 2000;5:29–39.
12.
Chapple A, May C, Campion P: Lay understanding of genetic disease: a British study of families attending a genetic counseling service. J Genet Couns 1995;4:281–300.
13.
Van de Nieuwenhoff HW, Mesters I, Gielen C, De Vries NK: Family communication regarding inherited high cholesterol: why and how do patients disclose genetic risk? Soc Sci Med 2007;65:1024–1037.
14.
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;7:33–43.
15.
Allum N, Sturgis P, Tabourazi D, Brunton-Smith I: Science knowledge and attitudes across cultures: a meta-analysis. Public Underst Sci 2008;17:35–54.
16.
Sturgis P, Allum N: Science in society: re-evaluating the deficit model of public attitudes. Public Underst Sci 2004;13:55–74.
17.
Condit CM: What is ‘public opinion’ about genetics? Nat Rev Genet 2001;2:811–815.
18.
Van Kenhove P, Wijnen K, De Wulf K: The influence of topic involvement on mail-survey response behavior. Psychol Mark 2002;19:293–301.
19.
Martin CL: The impact of topic interest on mail survey response behaviour. J Market Res Soc 1994;36:327–338.
20.
Petty RE, Cacioppo JT: Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change. New York, Springer, 1986.
21.
Siegel S, Castellan NJ Jr: Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences, ed 2 (rev). New York, McGraw-Hill, 1988.
22.
Wardle J, Waller J, Brunswick N, Jarvis MJ: Awareness of risk factors for cancer among British adults. Public Health 2001;115:173–174.
23.
Waller J, McCaffery K, Wardle J: Beliefs about the risk factors for cervical cancer in a British population sample. Prev Med 2004;38:745–753.
24.
Van den Nieuwenhoff HW, Mesters I, De Vries NK: Public awareness of the existence of inherited high cholesterol. Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil 2006;13:990–992.
25.
Morris J, Gwinn M, Clyne M, Khoury MJ: Public knowledge regarding the role of genetic susceptibility to environmentally induced health conditions. Community Genet 2003;6:22–28.
26.
De Vries H, Mesters I, Van de Steeg H, Honing C: The general public’s information needs and perceptions regarding hereditary cancer: an application of the integrated change model. Patient Educ Couns 2005;56:154–165.
27.
Molster C, Charles T, Samanek A, O’Leary P: Australian study on public knowledge of human genetics and health. Public Health Genomics 2009;12:84–91.
28.
Etchegary H, Cappelli M, Potter B, Vloet M, Graham I, Walker M, Wilson B: Attitude and knowledge about genetics and genetic testing. Public Health Genomics 2010;13: 80–88.
29.
Hahn S, Letvak S, Powell K, Christianson C, Wallace D, Speer M, Lietz P, Blanton S, Vance J, Pericak-Vance M, Henrich VC: A community’s awareness and perceptions of genomic medicine. Public Health Genomics 2010; 13:63–71.
30.
Mesters I, Ausems A, De Vries H: General public’s knowledge, interest and information needs related to genetic cancer: an exploratory study. Eur J Cancer Prev 2005;14:69–75.
31.
Richards M, Ponder M: Lay understanding of genetics: a test of a hypothesis. J Med Genet 1996;33:1032–1036.
32.
Renner CH, Renner MJ: But I thought I knew that: using confidence estimation as a debiasing technique to improve classroom performance. Appl Cogn Psychol 2001;15:23–32.
33.
Lanie AD, Epstein Jayaratne T, Sheldon JP, Kardia SL, Anderson ES, Feldbaum M, Petty EM: Exploring the public understanding of basic genetic concepts. J Genet Couns 2004;13:305–320.
34.
Wiebe DJ, Black D: Illusional beliefs in the context of risky sexual behaviors. J Appl Soc Psychol 1997;27:1727–1749.
35.
Catz DS, Green NS, Tobin JN, Lloyd-Puryear MA, Kyler P, Umemoto A, Cernoch J, Brown R, Wolman F: Attitudes about genetics in underserved, culturally diverse populations. Community Genet 2005;8:161–172.
36.
Baars M, Henneman L, ten Kate LP: Deficiency of knowledge of genetics and genetic tests among general practitioners, gynecologists, and pediatricians: a global problem. Genet Med 2005;7:605–610.
37.
Vural BK, Tomatir AG, Kurban NK, Taspinar A: Nursing students’ self-reported knowledge of genetics and genetic education. Public Health Genomics 2009;12:225–232.
© 2010 S. Karger AG, Basel
2010
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.