How people make decisions about predictive genetic testing: An analogue study

Abstract

Predictive genetic testing will be possible for more common diseases in the future. Little is known, however, about the decision process people go through when considering genetic testing. This study looked at peoples’ decisions to seek professional advice on genetic testing for a hypothetical adult onset disease. Twenty individuals were presented with a decision scenario and verbal protocols were collected whilst participants worked through information relevant to the decision. Information was presented to participants via a computer and each participant's path through the information was recorded. Analysis of the data demonstrated that whilst most participants evaluated the consequences of the various decision options, this strategy was embedded within a variety of decision making styles. These were identified as conflicted change, unconflicted change, worst case scenario, dominant moral stance, naturalistic style, and vigilance respectively. Implications for clinical practice and future research are discussed.