Browsing by Author "Haga, Susanne B"

Now showing 1 - 5 of 5
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Analysis of educational materials and destruction/opt-out initiatives for storage and use of residual newborn screening samples.
    (Genet Test Mol Biomarkers, 2010-10) Haga, Susanne B
    In recent years, the storage and use of residual newborn screening (NBS) samples has gained attention. To inform ongoing policy discussions, this article provides an update of previous work on new policies, educational materials, and parental options regarding the storage and use of residual NBS samples. A review of state NBS Web sites was conducted for information related to the storage and use of residual NBS samples in January 2010. In addition, a review of current statutes and bills introduced between 2005 and 2009 regarding storage and/or use of residual NBS samples was conducted. Fourteen states currently provide information about the storage and/or use of residual NBS samples. Nine states provide parents the option to request destruction of the residual NBS sample after the required storage period or the option to exclude the sample for research uses. In the coming years, it is anticipated that more states will consider policies to address parental concerns about the storage and use of residual NBS samples. Development of new policies regarding storage and use of residual NBS samples will require careful consideration of impact on NBS programs, parent and provider educational materials, and respect for parents among other issues.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Patient beliefs and behaviors about genomic risk for type 2 diabetes: Implications for prevention
    (Journal of Health Communication, 2015-01-01) Gallagher, Patrick; King, Heather A; Haga, Susanne B; Orlando, Lori A; Joy, Scott V; Trujillo, Gloria M; Scott, William Michael; Bembe, Marylou; Creighton, Dana L; Cho, Alex H; Ginsburg, Geoffrey S; Vorderstrasse, Allison
    Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC 2015.Type 2 diabetes is a major health burden in the United States, and population trends suggest this burden will increase. High interest in, and increased availability of, testing for genetic risk of type 2 diabetes presents a new opportunity for reducing type 2 diabetes risk for many patients; however, to date, there is little evidence that genetic testing positively affects type 2 diabetes prevention. Genetic information may not fit patients illness representations, which may reduce the chances of risk-reducing behavior changes. The present study aimed to examine illness representations in a clinical sample who are at risk for type 2 diabetes and interested in genetic testing. The authors used the Common Sense Model to analyze survey responses of 409 patients with type 2 diabetes risk factors. Patients were interested in genetic testing for type 2 diabetes risk and believed in its importance. Most patients believed that genetic factors are important to developing type 2 diabetes (67%), that diet and exercise are effective in preventing type 2 diabetes (95%), and that lifestyle changes are more effective than drugs (86%). Belief in genetic causality was not related to poorer self-reported health behaviors. These results suggest that patients interest in genetic testing for type 2 diabetes might produce a teachable moment that clinicians can use to counsel behavior change.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Researcher practices on returning genetic research results.
    (Genet Test Mol Biomarkers, 2010-12) Heaney, Christopher; Tindall, Genevieve; Lucas, Joe; Haga, Susanne B
    BACKGROUND/AIMS: as genetic and genomic research proliferates, debate has ensued about returning results to participants. In addition to consideration of the benefits and harms to participants, researchers must also consider the logistical and financial feasibility of returning research results. However, little data exist of actual researcher practices. METHODS: we conducted an online survey of 446 corresponding authors of genetic/genomic studies conducted in the United States and published in 2006-2007 to assess the frequency with which they considered, offered to, or actually returned research results, what factors influenced these decisions, and the method of communicating results. RESULTS: the response rate was 24% (105/446). Fifty-four percent of respondents considered the issue of returning research results to participants, 28% offered to return individual research results, and 24% actually returned individual research results. Of those who considered the issue of returning research results during the study planning phase, the most common factors considered were whether research results were deemed clinically useful (18%) and respect for participants (13%). Researchers who had a medical degree and conducted studies on children were significantly more likely to offer to return or actually return individual results compared to those with a Ph.D. only. CONCLUSIONS: we speculate that issues associated with clinical validity and respect for participants dominated concerns of time and expense given the prominent and continuing ethical debates surrounding genetics and genomics research. The substantial number of researchers who did not consider returning research results suggests that researchers and institutional review boards need to devote more attention to a topic about which research participants are interested.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Striking a balance in communicating pharmacogenetic test results: promoting comprehension and minimizing adverse psychological and behavioral response.
    (Patient education and counseling, 2014-10) Haga, Susanne B; Mills, Rachel; Bosworth, Hayden

    Objective

    Pharmacogenetic (PGx) testing can provide information about a patient's likelihood to respond to a medication or experience an adverse event, and be used to inform medication selection and/or dosing. Promoting patient comprehension of PGx test results will be important to improving engagement and understanding of treatment decisions.

    Methods

    The discussion in this paper is based on our experiences and the literature on communication of genetic test results for disease risk and broad risk communication strategies.

    Results

    Clinical laboratory reports often describe PGx test results using standard terminology such as 'poor metabolizer' or 'ultra-rapid metabolizer.' While this type of terminology may promote patient recall with its simple, yet descriptive nature, it may be difficult for some patients to comprehend and/or cause adverse psychological or behavioral responses.

    Conclusion

    The language used to communicate results and their significance to patients will be important to consider in order to minimize confusion and potential psychological consequences such as increased anxiety that can adversely impact medication-taking behaviors.

    Practice implications

    Due to patients' unfamiliarity with PGx testing and the potential for confusion, adverse psychological effects, and decreased medication adherence, health providers need to be cognizant of the language used in discussing PGx test results with patients.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    The enduring importance of family health history in the era of genomic medicine and risk assessment.
    (Per Med, 2020-04-22) Haga, Susanne B; Orlando, Lori A
    Improving disease risk prediction and tailoring preventive interventions to patient risk factors is one of the primary goals of precision medicine. Family health history is the traditional approach to quickly gather genetic and environmental data relevant to the patient. While the utility of family health history is well-documented, its utilization is variable, in part due to lack of patient and provider knowledge and incomplete or inaccurate data. With the advances and reduced costs of sequencing technologies, comprehensive sequencing tests can be performed as a risk assessment tool. We provide an overview of each of these risk assessment approaches, the benefits and limitations and implementation challenges.