Login to MyKarger

New to MyKarger? Click here to sign up.



Login with Facebook

Forgot your password?

Authors, Editors, Reviewers

For Manuscript Submission, Check or Review Login please go to Submission Websites List.

Submission Websites List

Institutional Login
(Shibboleth or Open Athens)

For the academic login, please select your country in the dropdown list. You will be redirected to verify your credentials.

Free Access

Age Differences in Genetic Knowledge, Health Literacy and Causal Beliefs for Health Conditions

Ashida S.a · Goodman M.b · Pandya C.b · Koehly L.M.a · Lachance C.a · Stafford J.b · Kaphingst K.A.a

Author affiliations

aSocial and Behavioral Research Branch, National Human Genome Research Institute, Bethesda, Md., and bGraduate Program in Public Health, Department of Preventive Medicine, Stony Brook University, New York, N.Y., USA

Corresponding Author

Sato Ashida, PhD

School of Public Health, University of Memphis

Browning Hall 224

Memphis, TN 38152 (USA)

Tel. +1 901 678 1687, Fax +1 901 678 1715, E-Mail sashida@memphis.edu

Related Articles for ""

Public Health Genomics 2011;14:307–316

Do you have an account?

Login Information





Contact Information












By signing up for MyKarger you will automatically participate in our year-End raffle.
If you Then Do Not wish To participate, please uncheck the following box.

Yes, I wish To participate In the year-End raffle And Get the chance To win some Of our most interesting books, And other attractive prizes.


I have read the Karger Terms and Conditions and agree.



Abstract

Objectives: This study examined the levels of genetic knowledge, health literacy and beliefs about causation of health conditions among individuals in different age groups. Methods: Individuals (n = 971) recruited through 8 community health centers in Suffolk County, New York, completed a one-time survey. Results: Levels of genetic knowledge were lower among individuals in older age groups (26–35, p = 0.011; 36–49, p = 0.002; 50 years and older, p<0.001) compared to those in the youngest age group (18–25). Participants in the oldest age group also had lower health literacy than those in the youngest group (p <0.001). Those in the oldest group were more likely to endorse genetic (OR = 1.87, p = 0.008) and less likely to endorse behavioral factors like diet, exercise and smoking (OR = 0.55, p = 0.010) as causes of a person’s body weight than those in the youngest group. Higher levels of genetic knowledge were associated with higher likelihood of behavioral attribution for body weight (OR = 1.25, p <0.001). Conclusions: Providing additional information that compensates for their lower genetic knowledge may help individuals in older age groups benefit from rapidly emerging genetic health information more fully. Increasing the levels of genetic knowledge about common complex diseases may help motivate individuals to engage in health promoting behaviors to maintain healthy weight through increases in behavioral causal attributions.

© 2010 S. Karger AG, Basel


References

  1. Christensen K, Murray JC: Focus on research: what genome-wide association studies can do for medicine. New Engl J Med 2007;356:1094–1097.
  2. Guttmacher AE, Collins FS: Welcome to the genomic era. New Engl J Med 2003;349:996–998.
  3. Collins FS, Green ED, Guttmacher AE, Guyer MS: A vision for the future of genomics research. Nature 2003;422:835–847.
  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. Lanie AD, Jayaratne TE, 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.
  6. Emery J, Kumar S, Smith H: Patient understanding of genetic principles and their expectations of genetic services within the NHS: a qualitative study. Community Genet 1998;1:78–83.
  7. Human Genetics Commission: Public attitudes to human genetics information: people’s panel quantitative study conducted for the human genetics commission, London. 2001. http://www.Hgc.Gov.Uk.London.
  8. Gaskell G, Allum N, Bauer M, Durant J, Allansdottir A, Bonfadelli H, Boy D, De Cheveigné S, Fjaestad B, Gutteling JM, Hampel J, Jelsøe E, Jesuino JC, Kohring M, Kronberger N, Midden C, Nielsen TH, Przestalski A, Rusanen T, Sakellaris G, Torgersen H, Twardowski T, Wagner W: Biotechnology and the European public. Nat Biotechnol 2000;18:935–938.
  9. Sturgis P, Cooper H, Fife-Schaw C: Attitudes to biotechnology: estimating the opinions of a better-informed public. New Genet Soc 2005;24:31–56.
  10. Guttmacher AE, Collins FS, Carmona RH: The family history – more important than ever. New Engl J Med 2004;351:2333–2336.
  11. Bowling BV, Acra EE, Wang L, Myers MF, Dean GE, Markle GC, Moskalik CL, Huether CA: Development and evaluation of a genetics literacy assessment instrument for undergraduates. Genetics 2008;178:15–22.
  12. Lea DH, Kaphingst KA, Bowen DJ, Lipkus I, Hadley DW: Communicating genetic and genomic information: health literacy and numeracy considerations. Public Health Genomics 2010, E-pub ahead of print.
  13. Kirsch I, Jungeblut A, Jenkins L, Kolstad A: Adult Literacy in America: A First Look at the Findings of the National Adult Literacy Survey, ed 3. Washington, D.C., National Center for Education, US Department of Education, 2002, vol 201.
  14. Kutner M, Greenberg E, Baer J: National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NAAL): A First Look at the Literacy of America’s Adults in the 21st Century (NCES 2006-470). Washington, D.C., National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, 2005.
  15. White S: Assessing the Nation’s Health Literacy: Key Concepts and Findings of the National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NAAL). Chicago, American Medical Association Foundation, 2008.
  16. Baker DW, Gazmararian JA, Sudano J, Patterson M: The association between age and health literacy among elderly persons. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci 2000;55: S368–S374.
  17. Kutner M, Greenberg E, Jin Y, Paulsen C: The Health Literacy of America’s Adults: Results from the 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy. Washington, D.C., National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, 2006.
  18. Bennett CL, Ferreira MR, Davis TC, Kaplan J, Weinberger M, Kuzel T, Seday MA, Sartor O: Relation between literacy, race, and stage of presentation among low-income patients with prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 1998;16:3101–3104.
  19. Berkman ND, DeWalt DA, Pignone MP, Sheridan SL, Lohr KN, Lux L, Sutton SF, Swinson T, Bonito AJ: Literacy and Health Outcome. Evidence report/technology assessment No. 87. Rockville, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2004.
  20. Proceedings of the 2005 White House Conference on Aging Mini-Conference on Health Literacy and Health Disparities. Chicago, American Medical Association, 2005.
  21. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics: Health conditions: chronic conditions, ages 18+: US 1997–2008. Health Data Interactive. 2008. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/hdi.htm.
  22. Gornick ME: A decade of research on disparities in medicare utilization: lessons for the health and health care of vulnerable men. Am J Public Health 2003;93:753–759.
  23. Morgan L, Kunkel S: Aging: The Social Context, ed 2. Thousand Oaks, Pine Forge Press, 2001.
  24. Bernhardt BA, Chase GA, Faden RR, Geller G, Hofman KJ, Tambor ES, Holtzman NA: Educating patients about cystic fibrosis carrier screening in a primary care setting. Arch Fam Med 1996;5:336–340.
  25. Henneman L, Bramsen I, Van Der Ploeg HM, Ten Kate LP: Preconception cystic fibrosis carrier couple screening: impact, understanding, and satisfaction. Genet Test 2002;6:195–202.
  26. Goel V, Glazier R, Holzapfel S, Pugh P, Summers A: Evaluating patient’s knowledge of maternal serum screening. Prenatal Diag 1996;16:425–430.
  27. Bottorff JL, Ratner PA, Balneaves LG, Richardson CG, McCullum M, Hack T, Chalmers K, Buxton J: Women’s interest in genetic testing for breast cancer risk: the influence of sociodemographics and knowledge. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2002;11:89–95.
  28. Furr LA, Kelly SE: The Genetic Knowledge Index: developing a standard measure of genetic knowledge. Genet Test 1999;3:193–199.
  29. 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.
  30. Jallinoja P, Aro AR: Knowledge about genes and heredity among Finns. N Genet Soc 1999;18:101–110.
  31. Ishiyama I, Nagai A, Muto K, Tamakoshi A, Kokado M, Mimura K, Tanzawa T, Yamagata Z: Relationship between public attitudes toward genomic studies related to medicine and their level of genomic literacy in Japan. Am J Med Genet A 2008;146A:1696–1706.
  32. Diefenbach MA, Leventhal H: The common-sense model of illness representation: theoretical and practical considerations. J Soc Distress Homel 1996;5:11–38.
    External Resources
  33. Senior V, Marteau TM, Weinman J: Impact of genetic testing on causal models of heart disease and arthritis: an analogue study. Psychol Health 2000;14:1077–1088.
    External Resources
  34. Senior V, Marteau TM, Peters TJ: Will genetic testing for predisposition for disease result in fatalism? A qualitative study of parents responses to neonatal screening for familial hypercholesterolaemia. Soc Sci Med 1999;48:1857–1860.
  35. Shiloh S: Illness representations, self-regulation, and genetic counseling: a theoretical review. J Genet Couns 2006;15:325–337.
  36. Emery J, Barlow-Stewart K, Metcalfe SA, Sullivan D: Genetics and preventive health care. Aust Fam Physician 2007;36:808–811.
  37. O’Neill SC, White DB, Sanderson SC, Lipkus IM, Bepler G, Bastian LA, McBride CM: The feasibility of online genetic testing for lung cancer susceptibility: uptake of a web-based protocol and decision outcomes. Genet Med 2008;10:121–130.
  38. Weiss BD, Mays MZ, Martz W, Castro KM, DeWalt DA, Pignone MP, Mockbee J, Hale FA: Quick assessment of literacy in primary care: the newest vital sign. Ann Fam Med 2005;3:514–522.
  39. Osborn CY, Weiss BD, Davis TC, Skripkauskas S, Rodrigue C, Bass PF, Wolf MS: Measuring adult literacy in health care: performance of the newest vital sign. Am J Health Behav 2007;31(suppl 1):36–46.
  40. Davis TC, Long SW, Jackson RH, Mayeaux EJ, George RB, Murphy PW, Crouch MA: Rapid estimate of adult literacy in medicine: a shortened screening instrument. Fam Med 1993;25:391–395.
  41. Parker RM, Baker DW, Williams MV, Nurss JR: The test of functional health literacy in adults: a new instrument for measuring patients’ literacy skills. J Gen Intern Med 1995;10:537–541.
  42. McBride CM, Alford SH, Reid RJ, Larson EB, Baxevanis AD, Brody LC: Characteristics of users of online personalized genomic risk assessments: implications for physician-patient interactions. Genet Med 2009;11:582–587.
  43. Spencer EA, Appleby PN, Davey GK, Key TJ: Validity of self-reported height and weight in 4,808 EPIC-Oxford participants. Public Health Nutr 2002;5:561–565.
  44. Jeffery RW: Bias in reported body weight as a function of education, occupation, health and weight concern. Addict Behav 1996;21:217–222.
  45. Lee VE: Using hierarchical linear modeling to study social contexts: the case of school effects. Educ Psychol 2000;35:125–141.
    External Resources
  46. Joseph M: Literacy of 90 million is deficient: U.S. Survey sounds alarm over skills in reading, arithmetic. The Washington Post, September 30, 1993, A01.
  47. Condit CM: Public understandings of genetics and health. Clin Genet 2010;77:1–9.
  48. Maibach E, Parrott R: Designing Health Messages: Public Health Practice and Communication Theory. Newbury Park, Sage Publications, 1995.
  49. Wright AJ, Weinman J, Marteau TM: The impact of learning of a genetic predisposition to nicotine dependence: an analogue study. Tob Control 2003;12:227–230.

Article / Publication Details

First-Page Preview
Abstract of Paper

Published online: September 09, 2010
Issue release date: July 2011

Number of Print Pages: 10
Number of Figures: 0
Number of Tables: 4

ISSN: 1662-4246 (Print)
eISSN: 1662-8063 (Online)

For additional information: https://www.karger.com/PHG


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.