This study explored perceptions, preferences and attitudes towards disclosure of genetic testing results for stroke among stroke-free controls (and their family members) in the SIREN-SIBS Genomics Study, healthcare providers and policymakers.
Materials and Methods
We conducted a qualitative thematic analysis of key informant interviews with 61 participants recruited from community advisory boards (30) and health care providers (31) across seven sites in Nigeria and Ghana.
Major findings illustrate differences in the knowledge of genetic testing with superior knowledge among health care professionals. Relatives and religious leaders were opined as the best to receive the disclosure as they would be able to break the news to the patient in a culturally sensitive manner to reduce the likely resultant emotional outburst. Poor level of awareness of national guidelines for disclosing genetic results exist. Key facilitating factors for disclosure are education, enabling environment, involvement of religious and community leaders, campaigns, and possible treatment options. Disclosure inhibitors include inadequate information, fear of marital break-up or family displacement, fear of stigmatization, fear of isolation, religious beliefs, health worker attitude, and lack of preparedness to accept results.
These necessitate culturally sensitive interventions for continuing education, increased awareness and sustained engagement to equip all stakeholders in genetic testing disclosure process.
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
One-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:Subscribe to Journal of Stroke and Cerebrovascular Diseases
Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
- Delivery of cascade screening for hereditary conditions: a scoping review of the literature.Health Aff (Millwood). 2018; 37: 801-808
- Process and outcome in communication of genetic information within families: a systematic review.Eur J Hum Genet. 2007; 15: 999-1011
- Public knowledge of and attitudes toward genetics and genetic testing.Genetic Testing Mol Biomarkers. 2013; 17: 327-335https://doi.org/10.1089/gtmb.2012.0350
- Genetic testing and common disorders in a public health framework: how to assess relevance and possibilities.Eur J Hum Genet. 2011; 19: S6-S44
- Deficiency of knowledge of genetics and genetic tests among general practitioners, gynecologists, and pediatricians: a global problem.Genet Med. 2005; 7: 605-610
- General practitioner management of genetic aspects of a cardiac disease: a scenario-based study to anticipate providers’ practices.J Commun Genetics. 2010; 1: 83-90
- Family physicians’ management of genetic aspects of a cardiac disease: a scenario-based study from Slovenia.Balkan J Med Genetics. 2014; 17: 15-22
- Genetic educational needs and the role of genetics in primary care: a focus group study with multiple perspectives.BMC Family Pract. 2011; 12
- Survey of European clinical geneticists on awareness, experiences and attitudes towards direct-to-consumer genetic testing.Genome Med. 2013; 5 (no.article no. 45)
- A survey of UK public interest in internet-based personal genome testing.PLoS One. 2010; 5 (Article ID e13473)
- Experiences of early users of direct-to-consumer genomics in Switzerland: an exploratory study.Public Health Genomics. 2012; 15: 352-362
- Awareness, attitudes and perspectives of direct-to-consumer genetic testing in Greece: a survey of potential consumers.J Hum Genet. 2015; 60: 515-523
- “Does knowledge make a difference? The association between knowledge about genes and attitudes toward gene tests.J Health Commun. 2000; 5: 29-39
- Attitudes toward genetic testing among the general population and relatives of patients with a severe genetic disease: a survey from Finland.Am J Hum Genet. 1995; 56: 1493-1500
- Public attitudes towards preventive genomics and personal interest in genetic testing to prevent disease: a survey study.Eur J Public Health. 2013; 24: 768-775
- Public attitudes towards genetic testing revisited: comparing opinions between 2002 and 2010”.Eur J Hum Genet. 2002; 21: 793-799
- Survey on knowledge, attitudes, and training needs of Italian residents on genetic tests for hereditary breast and colorectal cancer.Biomed Res Int. 2014; (Article ID 418416pages): 7
- Knowledge and attitudes towards genetic testing: a two year follow-up study in patients with asthma, diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular disease.J Genet Couns. 2007; 16: 493-504
- Toward an in-depth profiling of DTC users.Clin Genet. 2015; 88: 505-506
- Living at risk: factors that affect the experience of direct-to-consumer genetic testing.Mayo Clin Proc. 2015; 90 (article no. 1101): 1323-1326
- The disclosure of direct-to-consumer genetic testing: sounding out the psychological perspective of consumers.Biol Med. 2016; 8 (article 316)
- Developing Focus Group Research.SAGE Publications Ltd., London, UK1999
- Methodological aspects of focus groups in health research: results of qualitative interviews with focus group moderators.Glob Qual Nurs Res. 2016; 32333393616630466
- Successful Focus Groups: Advancing the State of the Art.SAGE Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, OK1993
- Stroke investigative research and education network: public outreach and engagement.J Commun Med Health Educ. 2017; 7: 518https://doi.org/10.4172/2161-0711.1000518
- Attitudes of physicians and patients towards disclosure of genetic information to spouse and first-degree relatives: a case study from Turkey.BMC Med Ethics. 2014; 15: 39https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6939-15-39
- Return of individual research results from genomic research: a systematic review of stakeholder perspectives.PLoS One. 2021; https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0258646
- Patients’ attitudes towards disclosure of genetic test results to family members: the impact of patients’ sociodemographic background and counseling experience.J Genet Counsel. 2016; 25: 314-324https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-015-9873-1
- Focus group study of perceptions of genetic risk disclosure in members of the public in sweden: “i'll phone the five closest ones, but what happens to the other ten?.J Pers Med. 2021; 11 (10.3390/jpm11111191): 1191
- Disclosure pattern and follow-up after the molecular diagnosis of BRCA/CHEK2 mutations.J Genet Couns. 2014; 23: 254-261
Published online: January 10, 2023
Accepted: January 4, 2023
Received in revised form: December 30, 2022
Received: September 21, 2022
© 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.