IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v15y2006i5p565-573.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A legacy for the children – attitudes of older adults in the United Kingdom to genetic testing

Author

Listed:
  • Heather Skirton
  • Lorraine Q Frazier
  • Amy O Calvin
  • Marlene Z Cohen

Abstract

Aim. The aim of this study was to assess understanding of genetics and attitudes towards genetic testing for clinical and research purposes in a group of older adults in the UK. Background. Increasingly, genomics will have an impact on the diagnosis, prevention and treatment of common diseases and the prescription of drugs. The chance of being affected by a medical condition increases with age and therefore the use of genetic testing as part of general health‐care practice has an impact on the older population. Methods. Older adults were recruited to two focus groups (n = 7 and n = 10 respectively). Focus group discussions were guided by a series of questions and were audiotaped. The transcribed data were coded for significant statements, which were organized under thematic headings. Results. The mean age of participants was 76 years. The main themes to emerge were: understanding, approach to genetic testing and conditions for testing. In this cohort, the older adults were largely unsure about the underlying scientific basis of genetics but were keen to learn more. While enhanced medical knowledge could enable preventive measures to be taken and so reduce suffering, it was acknowledged that for some people knowing the future could potentially cause anxiety and harm. Participants were wary about research being used to benefit private companies and voiced ethical concerns about potential coercion to be tested and the misuse of science. However, all participants had an altruistic approach that influenced their willingness to be tested to benefit others in their family or the wider community. Conditions for testing included provision of information about the purpose of testing and feedback on the results. Conclusions. Older adults are positive about the opportunities presented by genetic testing for clinical reasons and research, but need accurate information about the reasons for and implications of such testing. Relevance to clinical practice. The results of this study confirm the need for nurses to be proactive in developing the genetic competencies required to detect potential familial disease, make appropriate referrals to genetic services and ensure informed consent is obtained for genetic testing.

Suggested Citation

  • Heather Skirton & Lorraine Q Frazier & Amy O Calvin & Marlene Z Cohen, 2006. "A legacy for the children – attitudes of older adults in the United Kingdom to genetic testing," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(5), pages 565-573, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:15:y:2006:i:5:p:565-573
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2006.01372.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2006.01372.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2006.01372.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Henderson, Bethan J. & Maguire, Bryan T., 2000. "Three lay mental models of disease inheritance," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 293-301, January.
    2. Bates, Benjamin R. & Lynch, John A. & Bevan, Jennifer L. & Condit, Celeste M., 2005. "Warranted concerns, warranted outlooks: a focus group study of public understandings of genetic research," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 331-344, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gail E. Henderson, 2008. "Introducing Social and Ethical Perspectives on Gene—Environment Research," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 37(2), pages 251-276, November.
    2. Bates, Benjamin R. & Lynch, John A. & Bevan, Jennifer L. & Condit, Celeste M., 2005. "Warranted concerns, warranted outlooks: a focus group study of public understandings of genetic research," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 331-344, January.
    3. Klaus Wagner, 2007. "Mental Models of Flash Floods and Landslides," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(3), pages 671-682, June.
    4. Jonas Lander & Tobias Hainz & Irene Hirschberg & Daniel Strech, 2014. "Current Practice of Public Involvement Activities in Biomedical Research and Innovation: A Systematic Qualitative Review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(12), pages 1-17, December.
    5. Shepherd, Richard & Barnett, Julie & Cooper, Helen & Coyle, Adrian & Moran-Ellis, Jo & Senior, Victoria & Walton, Chris, 2007. "Towards an understanding of British public attitudes concerning human cloning," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 65(2), pages 377-392, July.
    6. Bennett, Paul & Smith, Susan J., 2007. "Genetics, insurance and participation: How a Citizens' Jury reached its verdict," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(12), pages 2487-2498, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:15:y:2006:i:5:p:565-573. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2702 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.