Format
Sort by

Send to

Choose Destination

Links from PubMed

Items: 1 to 20 of 29

1.

Patients' understanding of and responses to multiplex genetic susceptibility test results.

Kaphingst KA, McBride CM, Wade C, Alford SH, Reid R, Larson E, Baxevanis AD, Brody LC.

Genet Med. 2012 Jul;14(7):681-7.

2.

Impact of direct-to-consumer predictive genomic testing on risk perception and worry among patients receiving routine care in a preventive health clinic.

James KM, Cowl CT, Tilburt JC, Sinicrope PS, Robinson ME, Frimannsdottir KR, Tiedje K, Koenig BA.

Mayo Clin Proc. 2011 Oct;86(10):933-40. doi: 10.4065/mcp.2011.0190.

3.

Young smokers' views of genetic susceptibility testing for lung cancer risk: minding unintended consequences.

Docherty SL, McBride CM, Sanderson SC, O'Neill SC, Shepperd JA, Lipkus IM.

J Community Genet. 2011 Sep;2(3):165-72. doi: 10.1007/s12687-011-0053-1.

4.

Population sciences, translational research, and the opportunities and challenges for genomics to reduce the burden of cancer in the 21st century.

Khoury MJ, Clauser SB, Freedman AN, Gillanders EM, Glasgow RE, Klein WM, Schully SD.

Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2011 Oct;20(10):2105-14. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-11-0481. Epub 2011 Jul 27. Review.

5.

The general public's understanding and perception of direct-to-consumer genetic test results.

Leighton JW, Valverde K, Bernhardt BA.

Public Health Genomics. 2012;15(1):11-21. doi: 10.1159/000327159. Epub 2011 Jun 30.

6.

Communication strategies for enhancing understanding of the behavioral implications of genetic and biomarker tests for disease risk: the role of coherence.

Cameron LD, Marteau TM, Brown PM, Klein WM, Sherman KA.

J Behav Med. 2012 Jun;35(3):286-98. doi: 10.1007/s10865-011-9361-5. Epub 2011 Jun 23.

PMID:
21698440
7.

Motivations and perceptions of early adopters of personalized genomics: perspectives from research participants.

Gollust SE, Gordon ES, Zayac C, Griffin G, Christman MF, Pyeritz RE, Wawak L, Bernhardt BA.

Public Health Genomics. 2012;15(1):22-30. doi: 10.1159/000327296. Epub 2011 Jun 3.

8.
9.

Interest in genetic testing for modest changes in breast cancer risk: implications for SNP testing.

Graves KD, Peshkin BN, Luta G, Tuong W, Schwartz MD.

Public Health Genomics. 2011;14(3):178-89. doi: 10.1159/000324703. Epub 2011 Apr 2.

10.

Effect of direct-to-consumer genomewide profiling to assess disease risk.

Bloss CS, Schork NJ, Topol EJ.

N Engl J Med. 2011 Feb 10;364(6):524-34. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1011893. Epub 2011 Jan 12.

11.

Explanations of risk in families without identified mutations for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer.

Ersig AL, Ayres L, Hadley DW, Koehly LM.

J Nurs Scholarsh. 2010 Jun;42(2):139-46. doi: 10.1111/j.1547-5069.2010.01342.x.

12.

Social networkers' attitudes toward direct-to-consumer personal genome testing.

McGuire AL, Diaz CM, Wang T, Hilsenbeck SG.

Am J Bioeth. 2009;9(6-7):3-10. doi: 10.1080/15265160902928209. Erratum in: Am J Bioeth. 2009 Aug;9(8):77.

13.

Impact of genetic risk information and type of disease on perceived risk, anticipated affect, and expected consequences of genetic tests.

Cameron LD, Sherman KA, Marteau TM, Brown PM.

Health Psychol. 2009 May;28(3):307-16. doi: 10.1037/a0013947.

PMID:
19450036
14.

Evaluating online direct-to-consumer marketing of genetic tests: informed choices or buyers beware?

Geransar R, Einsiedel E.

Genet Test. 2008 Mar;12(1):13-23. doi: 10.1089/gte.2007.0024.

PMID:
18373401
15.

MC1R variants, melanoma and red hair color phenotype: a meta-analysis.

Raimondi S, Sera F, Gandini S, Iodice S, Caini S, Maisonneuve P, Fargnoli MC.

Int J Cancer. 2008 Jun 15;122(12):2753-60. doi: 10.1002/ijc.23396.

16.

Measures of sun exposure and sun protection practices for behavioral and epidemiologic research.

Glanz K, Yaroch AL, Dancel M, Saraiya M, Crane LA, Buller DB, Manne S, O'Riordan DL, Heckman CJ, Hay J, Robinson JK.

Arch Dermatol. 2008 Feb;144(2):217-22. doi: 10.1001/archdermatol.2007.46.

PMID:
18283179
17.

Anticipating dissemination of cancer genomics in public health: a theoretical approach to psychosocial and behavioral challenges.

Hay JL, Meischke HW, Bowen DJ, Mayer J, Shoveller J, Press N, Asgari M, Berwick M, Burke W.

Ann Behav Med. 2007 Nov-Dec;34(3):275-86. Review.

PMID:
18020937
18.

Assessing hypothetical scenario methodology in genetic susceptibility testing analog studies: a quantitative review.

Persky S, Kaphingst KA, Condit CM, McBride CM.

Genet Med. 2007 Nov;9(11):727-38. Review. Erratum in: Genet Med. 2007 Dec;9(12):855.

PMID:
18007141
19.

Genetic susceptibility testing versus family history-based risk assessment: Impact on perceived risk of Alzheimer disease.

LaRusse S, Roberts JS, Marteau TM, Katzen H, Linnenbringer EL, Barber M, Whitehouse P, Quaid K, Brown T, Green RC, Relkin NR.

Genet Med. 2005 Jan;7(1):48-53.

PMID:
15654228
20.

Interpretation of genetic risk feedback among African American smokers with low socioeconomic status.

Lipkus IM, McBride CM, Pollak KI, Lyna P, Bepler G.

Health Psychol. 2004 Mar;23(2):178-88.

PMID:
15008663
Items per page

Supplemental Content

Write to the Help Desk