Browsing by Author "Vorderstrasse, Allison"

Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Impact of Genetic Testing and Family Health History Based Risk Counseling on Behavior Change and Cognitive Precursors for Type 2 Diabetes.
    (J Genet Couns, 2017-02) Wu, R Ryanne; Myers, Rachel A; Hauser, Elizabeth R; Vorderstrasse, Allison; Cho, Alex; Ginsburg, Geoffrey S; Orlando, Lori A
    Family health history (FHH) in the context of risk assessment has been shown to positively impact risk perception and behavior change. The added value of genetic risk testing is less certain. The aim of this study was to determine the impact of Type 2 Diabetes (T2D) FHH and genetic risk counseling on behavior and its cognitive precursors. Subjects were non-diabetic patients randomized to counseling that included FHH +/- T2D genetic testing. Measurements included weight, BMI, fasting glucose at baseline and 12 months and behavioral and cognitive precursor (T2D risk perception and control over disease development) surveys at baseline, 3, and 12 months. 391 subjects enrolled of which 312 completed the study. Behavioral and clinical outcomes did not differ across FHH or genetic risk but cognitive precursors did. Higher FHH risk was associated with a stronger perceived T2D risk (pKendall < 0.001) and with a perception of "serious" risk (pKendall < 0.001). Genetic risk did not influence risk perception, but was correlated with an increase in perception of "serious" risk for moderate (pKendall = 0.04) and average FHH risk subjects (pKendall = 0.01), though not for the high FHH risk group. Perceived control over T2D risk was high and not affected by FHH or genetic risk. FHH appears to have a strong impact on cognitive precursors of behavior change, suggesting it could be leveraged to enhance risk counseling, particularly when lifestyle change is desirable. Genetic risk was able to alter perceptions about the seriousness of T2D risk in those with moderate and average FHH risk, suggesting that FHH could be used to selectively identify individuals who may benefit from genetic risk testing.
  • 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
    Perceptions of Personalized Medicine in an Academic Health System: Educational Findings.
    (Journal of contemporary medical education, 2015-01) Vorderstrasse, Allison; Katsanis, Sara Huston; Minear, Mollie A; Yang, Nancy; Rakhra-Burris, Tejinder; Reeves, Jason W; Cook-Deegan, Robert; Ginsburg, Geoffrey S; Ann Simmons, Leigh
    Prior reports demonstrate that personalized medicine implementation in clinical care is lacking. Given the program focus at Duke University on personalized medicine, we assessed health care providers' perspectives on their preparation and educational needs to effectively integrate personalized medicine tools and applications into their clinical practices.Data from 78 health care providers who participated in a larger study of personalized and precision medicine at Duke University were analyzed using Qualtrics (descriptive statistics). Individuals age 18 years and older were recruited for the larger study through broad email contacts across the university and health system. All participants completed an online 35-question survey that was developed, pilot-tested, and administered by a team of interdisciplinary researchers and clinicians at the Center for Applied Genomics and Precision Medicine.Overall, providers reported being ill-equipped to implement personalized medicine in clinical practice. Many respondents identified educational resources as critical for strengthening personalized medicine implementation in both research and clinical practice. Responses did not differ significantly between specialists and primary providers or by years since completion of the medical degree.Survey findings support prior calls for provider and patient education in personalized medicine. Respondents identified focus areas in training, education, and research for improving personalized medicine uptake. Given respondents' emphasis on educational needs, now may be an ideal time to address these needs in clinical training and public education programs.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Perspectives on genetic and genomic technologies in an academic medical center: the duke experience.
    (Journal of personalized medicine, 2015-04-03) Katsanis, Sara Huston; Minear, Mollie A; Vorderstrasse, Allison; Yang, Nancy; Reeves, Jason W; Rakhra-Burris, Tejinder; Cook-Deegan, Robert; Ginsburg, Geoffrey S; Simmons, Leigh Ann
    In this age of personalized medicine, genetic and genomic testing is expected to become instrumental in health care delivery, but little is known about its actual implementation in clinical practice.We surveyed Duke faculty and healthcare providers to examine the extent of genetic and genomic testing adoption. We assessed providers' use of genetic and genomic testing options and indications in clinical practice, providers' awareness of pharmacogenetic applications, and providers' opinions on returning research-generated genetic test results to participants. Most clinician respondents currently use family history routinely in their clinical practice, but only 18 percent of clinicians use pharmacogenetics. Only two respondents correctly identified the number of drug package inserts with pharmacogenetic indications. We also found strong support for the return of genetic research results to participants. Our results demonstrate that while Duke healthcare providers are enthusiastic about genomic technologies, use of genomic tools outside of research has been limited. Respondents favor return of research-based genetic results to participants, but clinicians lack knowledge about pharmacogenetic applications. We identified challenges faced by this institution when implementing genetic and genomic testing into patient care that should inform a policy and education agenda to improve provider support and clinician-researcher partnerships.