Aim: To explore the potential emotional and behavioural impact of providing information on personalised genomic risk to the public, using melanoma as an example, to aid research translation. Methods: We conducted four focus groups in which 34 participants were presented with a hypothetical scenario of an individual's lifetime genomic risk of melanoma (using the term ‘genetic risk'). We asked about understanding of genetic risk, who would choose to receive this risk information, potential emotional and behavioural impacts, and other concerns or potential benefits. Data were analysed thematically. Results: Participants thought this risk information could potentially motivate preventive behaviours such as sun protection and related it to screening for other diseases including breast cancer. Factors identified as influencing the decision to receive genetic risk information included education level, children, age and gender. Participants identified potential negative impacts on the recipient such as anxiety and worry, and proposed that this could be mitigated by providing additional explanatory and prevention information, and contact details of a health professional for further discussion. Participants' concerns included workplace and insurance discrimination. Conclusion: Participants recognised the potential for both positive and negative emotional and behavioural impacts related to receiving information on the personalised genomic risk of melanoma.

Keywords:
Genomic risk, Behavioural impact, Psychosocial impact, Melanoma, Genetic risk information
1.
Burton H, Chowdhury S, Dent T, Hall A, Pashayan N, Pharoah P: Public health implications from cogs and potential for risk stratification and screening. Nat Genet 2013;45:349-351.
2.
Pashayan N, Hall A, Chowdhury S, Dent T, Pharoah PD, Burton H: Public health genomics and personalized prevention: lessons from the cogs project. J Intern Med 2013;274:451-456.
3.
McBride CM, Koehly LM, Sanderson SC, Kaphingst KA: The behavioral response to personalized genetic information: will genetic risk profiles motivate individuals and families to choose more healthful behaviors? Annu Rev Public Health 2010;31:89-103.
4.
Marteau TM, French DP, Griffin SJ, Prevost AT, Sutton S, Watkinson C, Attwood S, Hollands GJ: Effects of communicating DNA-based disease risk estimates on risk-reducing behaviours. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010;CD007275.
5.
Lautenbach DM, Christensen KD, Sparks JA, Green RC: Communicating genetic risk information for common disorders in the era of genomic medicine. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet 2013;14:491-513.
6.
Gray SW, Martins Y, Feuerman LZ, Bernhardt BA, Biesecker BB, Christensen KD, Joffe S, Rini C, Veenstra D, McGuire AL; CSER Consortium Outcomes and Measures Working Group: Social and behavioral research in genomic sequencing: approaches from the clinical sequencing exploratory research consortium outcomes and measures working group. Genet Med 2014;16:727-735.
7.
Lea DH, Kaphingst KA, Bowen D, Lipkus I, Hadley DW: Communicating genetic and genomic information: health literacy and numeracy considerations. Public Health Genomics 2011;14:279-289.
8.
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Australasian Association of Cancer Registries: Cancer in Australia: An Overview 2012. Canberra, Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2012.
9.
Cust AE, Goumas C, Vuong K, Davies JR, Barrett JH, Holland EA, Schmid H, Agha-Hamilton C, Armstrong BK, Kefford RF, Aitken JF, Giles GG, Bishop D, Newton-Bishop JA, Hopper JL, Mann GJ, Jenkins MA: MC1R genotype as a predictor of early-onset melanoma, compared with self-reported and physician-measured traditional risk factors: an Australian case-control-family study. BMC Cancer 2013;13:406.
10.
Cust AE, Bui M, Goumas C, Jenkins MA; Australian Melanoma Family Study Investigators: Contribution of MC1R genotype and novel common genomic variants to melanoma risk prediction. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2014;23:566.
11.
Green AC, Williams GM, Logan V, Strutton GM: Reduced melanoma after regular sunscreen use: randomized trial follow-up. J Clin Oncol 2011;29:257-263.
12.
Weinstock MA: Reducing death from melanoma and standards of evidence. J Invest Dermatol 2012;132:1311-1312.
13.
Volkov A, Dobbinson S, Wakefield M, Slevin T: Seven-year trends in sun protection and sunburn among Australian adolescents and adults. Aust NZ J Public Health 2013;37:63-69.
14.
Krueger RA, Casey MA: Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research, ed 5. Thousand Oaks, SAGE Publications, 2015.
15.
Ulin P, Robinson E, Tolley E: Qualitative Methods in Public Health: A Field Guide for Applied Research, unabridged. Chichester, John Wiley & Sons, 2012.
16.
Smit AK, Keogh LA, Hersch J, Newson AJ, Butow P, Williams G, Cust AE: Public preferences for communicating personal genomic risk information: a focus group study. Health Expect 2015, Epub ahead of print.
17.
Human Genetics Society of Australasia: Process of Genetic Counselling (Guideline Document). Sydney, Human Genetics Society of Australasia, 2012.
18.
Meisel SF, Pashayan N, Rahman B, Side L, Fraser L, Gessler S, Lanceley A, Wardle J: Adjusting the frequency of mammography screening on the basis of genetic risk: attitudes among women in the UK. Breast 2015;24:237-241.
19.
Meisel SF, Side L, Fraser L, Gessler S, Wardle J, Lanceley A: Population-based, risk-stratified genetic testing for ovarian cancer risk: a focus group study. Public Health Genomics 2013;16:184-191.
20.
Campbell E, Ross LF: Parental attitudes and beliefs regarding the genetic testing of children. Community Genet 2005;8:94-102.
21.
Waters E: Smokers' belief about the tobacco control potential of ‘a gene for smoking': a focus group study. BMC Public Health 2014;14:1218.
22.
Keogh LA, van Vliet CM, Studdert DM, Maskiell JA, Macrae FA, St John DJ, Gaff CL, Young MA, Southey MC, Giles GG, Rosenthal DA, Hopper JL, Jenkins MA: Is uptake of genetic testing for colorectal cancer influenced by knowledge of insurance implications? Med J Aust 2009;191:255-258.
23.
Sanderson SC, O'Neill SC, Bastian LA, Bepler G, McBride CM: What can interest tell us about uptake of genetic testing? Intention and behavior amongst smokers related to patients with lung cancer. Public Health Genomics 2010;13:116-124.
© 2015 S. Karger AG, Basel
2015
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.