Format
Sort by
Items per page

Send to

Choose Destination

Links from PubMed

Items: 1 to 20 of 95

1.

Impact of delivery models on understanding genomic risk for type 2 diabetes.

Haga SB, Barry WT, Mills R, Svetkey L, Suchindran S, Willard HF, Ginsburg GS.

Public Health Genomics. 2014;17(2):95-104. doi: 10.1159/000358413. Epub 2014 Feb 27.

2.

Information-seeking and sharing behavior following genomic testing for diabetes risk.

Mills R, Powell J, Barry W, Haga SB.

J Genet Couns. 2015 Feb;24(1):58-66. doi: 10.1007/s10897-014-9736-1. Epub 2014 Jun 14.

3.

Public trust in genomic risk assessment for type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Mills R, Barry W, Haga SB.

J Genet Couns. 2014 Jun;23(3):401-8. doi: 10.1007/s10897-013-9674-3. Epub 2013 Dec 3.

4.

How Well Do Customers of Direct-to-Consumer Personal Genomic Testing Services Comprehend Genetic Test Results? Findings from the Impact of Personal Genomics Study.

Ostergren JE, Gornick MC, Carere DA, Kalia SS, Uhlmann WR, Ruffin MT, Mountain JL, Green RC, Roberts JS; PGen Study Group.

Public Health Genomics. 2015;18(4):216-24. doi: 10.1159/000431250. Epub 2015 Jun 16.

5.

Comprehension and Data-Sharing Behavior of Direct-To-Consumer Genetic Test Customers.

McGrath SP, Coleman J, Najjar L, Fruhling A, Bastola DR.

Public Health Genomics. 2016;19(2):116-24. doi: 10.1159/000444477. Epub 2016 Mar 8.

PMID:
26950077
6.

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
7.
8.

Discussing race-related limitations of genomic testing for colon cancer risk: implications for education and counseling.

Butrick MN, Vanhusen L, Leventhal KG, Hooker GW, Nusbaum R, Peshkin BN, Salehizadeh Y, Pavlick J, Schwartz MD, Graves KD.

Soc Sci Med. 2014 Aug;114:26-37. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.05.014. Epub 2014 May 15.

9.

Does Type 2 Diabetes Genetic Testing and Counseling Reduce Modifiable Risk Factors? A Randomized Controlled Trial of Veterans.

Voils CI, Coffman CJ, Grubber JM, Edelman D, Sadeghpour A, Maciejewski ML, Bolton J, Cho A, Ginsburg GS, Yancy WS Jr.

J Gen Intern Med. 2015 Nov;30(11):1591-8. doi: 10.1007/s11606-015-3315-5. Epub 2015 Apr 16.

10.
11.

Informing the Design of Direct-to-Consumer Interactive Personal Genomics Reports.

Shaer O, Nov O, Okerlund J, Balestra M, Stowell E, Ascher L, Bi J, Schlenker C, Ball M.

J Med Internet Res. 2015 Jun 12;17(6):e146. doi: 10.2196/jmir.4415.

12.

Effect of genetic testing for risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus on health behaviors and outcomes: study rationale, development and design.

Cho AH, Killeya-Jones LA, O'Daniel JM, Kawamoto K, Gallagher P, Haga S, Lucas JE, Trujillo GM, Joy SV, Ginsburg GS.

BMC Health Serv Res. 2012 Jan 18;12:16. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-12-16.

14.

How should risk be communicated to children: a cross-sectional study comparing different formats of probability information.

Ulph F, Townsend E, Glazebrook C.

BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2009 Jun 5;9:26. doi: 10.1186/1472-6947-9-26.

15.

Perceptions of genetic counseling services in direct-to-consumer personal genomic testing.

Darst BF, Madlensky L, Schork NJ, Topol EJ, Bloss CS.

Clin Genet. 2013 Oct;84(4):335-9. doi: 10.1111/cge.12166. Epub 2013 May 13.

PMID:
23590221
16.

Breast Cancer Risk Perceptions among Relatives of Women with Uninformative Negative BRCA1/2 Test Results: The Moderating Effect of the Amount of Shared Information.

Himes DO, Clayton MF, Donaldson GW, Ellington L, Buys SS, Kinney AY.

J Genet Couns. 2016 Apr;25(2):258-69. doi: 10.1007/s10897-015-9866-0. Epub 2015 Aug 7.

17.

Striking a balance in communicating pharmacogenetic test results: promoting comprehension and minimizing adverse psychological and behavioral response.

Haga SB, Mills R, Bosworth H.

Patient Educ Couns. 2014 Oct;97(1):10-5. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2014.06.007. Epub 2014 Jun 21. Review.

18.

Genetic counseling and neonatal screening for cystic fibrosis: an assessment of the communication process.

Ciske DJ, Haavisto A, Laxova A, Rock LZ, Farrell PM.

Pediatrics. 2001 Apr;107(4):699-705.

PMID:
11335747
19.

The efficacy of a standardized questionnaire in facilitating personalized communication about problems encountered in cancer genetic counseling: design of a randomized controlled trial.

Eijzenga W, Aaronson NK, Kluijt I, Sidharta GN, Hahn DE, Ausems MG, Bleiker EM.

BMC Cancer. 2014 Jan 15;14:26. doi: 10.1186/1471-2407-14-26.

20.

Understanding of BRCA1/2 genetic tests results: the importance of objective and subjective numeracy.

Hanoch Y, Miron-Shatz T, Rolison JJ, Ozanne E.

Psychooncology. 2014 Oct;23(10):1142-8. doi: 10.1002/pon.3537. Epub 2014 Apr 14.

PMID:
24733657

Supplemental Content

Support Center