Izvestiya of Saratov University.

Sociology. Politology

ISSN 1818-9601 (Print)
ISSN 2541-8998 (Online)

For citation:

Shekunova Y. O. The experience of applying preventive biotechnologies as part of caring for family members (on the basis on the empirical study results). Izvestiya of Saratov University. Sociology. Politology, 2023, vol. 23, iss. 3, pp. 294-302. DOI: 10.18500/1818-9601-2023-23-3-294-302, EDN: QVWPYS

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC-BY 4.0).
Full text PDF(Ru):
PDF icon sociologiya_2023_3-294-302.pdf
(downloads: 0)
Full text PDF(En):
PDF icon sociologiya_2023_3-294-302.pdf
(downloads: 55)
Language: 
Russian
Heading: 
Scientific section. Sociology
Article type: 
Article
UDC: 
316.4
DOI: 
10.18500/1818-9601-2023-23-3-294-302
EDN: 
QVWPYS

The experience of applying preventive biotechnologies as part of caring for family members (on the basis on the empirical study results)

Autors: 
Shekunova Yulia O., Samara National Research University
Abstract: 

New preventive genetic and cellular technologies are empowering people within the framework of self-preserving behavior and caring for family members. The purpose of this article is to describe the experience of using preventive biotechnologies, the motives and factors for doing so, and the fears associated with these technologies. The empirical is a series of free interviews with people having taken a predictive genetic test for themselves or their children, or who have turned to cord blood preservation technology. The respondents ranged in age from 25 to 56. It was shown that the main motivations for turning to new technologies are: early concern for one’s own health or the health of a child/grandchild or granddaughter; active longevity; family planning; and curiosity. He common factors in the decision of turning to the indicated technologies include: trust in medical knowledge; concern for the future; and cost of the service. Separate attention in the study was paid to the willingness to apply the results of genetic testing in practice. It was found that the majority of the respondents are interested in purely cognitive prevention. The study showed that users of new biotechnologies are characterized by an active, responsible approach to preventing and predicting health risks for themselves and their beloved ones. The data obtained in the article can be useful for modern biomedicine and society as a whole for expanding the awareness of new medical options.

Key words: 
self-preservation behavior
self-care
genetic tests
cellular technologies
preventive medicine
Reference: 
  1. Parsons Т. The Social System. 2nd ed. London : Routledge, 1991. 636 p. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203992951
  2. Lupton D., Chapman S. ‘A healthy lifestyle might be the death of you’: Discourses on diet, cholesterol control and heart disease in the press and among the lay public // Sociology of Health & Illness. 1995. Vol. 17, iss. 4. P. 477–494. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566. ep10932547
  3. Бороздина Е., Здравомыслова Е., Темкина А. Забота в постсоветском пространстве между патернализмом и неолиберализмом: феминистские исследования // Критическая социология заботы: перекрёстки социального неравенства : сб. ст. СПб. : Изд-во Европейского ун-та в Санкт-Петербурге, 2019. С. 6–23. (Вып. 5. Гендерная серия).
  4. Turrini M. Online Genomas: Problematizing the disruptivness of direct-to-consumer genetic tests // Sociology Compass. Vol. 12, iss. 1. e12633. https://doi.org/10.1111/ soc4.12633
  5. Богомягкова Е. С. Генетическое тестирование в практиках заботы о здоровье (по материалам эмпирического исследования) // Медицинская этика. 2022. № 2. С. 38–43. https://doi.org/10.24075/ medet.2022.045, EDN: VITYJH
  6. Konrad M. Narrating the New Predictive Genetic: Ethics, Ethnography and Science. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 2005. 216 p. (Cambridge Studies in Society and the Life Sciences). https://doi.org/10.1017/ CBO9780511584183
  7. Hauskeller Ch., Strurdy S., Tutton R. Genetics and the sociology of identity // Sociology. 2013. Vol. 47, iss. 5. P. 875–886. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038513505011
  8. Lock M., Freeman Ju, Chilibeck G., Beveridge D., Padolsky M. Susceptibility genes and the question of embodied identity // Medical Anthropology Quarterly. 2007. Vol. 21, iss. 3. P. 256–276. https://doi.org/10.1525/ maq.2007.21.3.256
  9. Finkler K. The Kin in the Gene: The Medicalization of Family and Kinship in American Society // Finkler K. Experiencing the New Genetics: Family Kinship and Kinship on the Medical Frontier. Philadelphia : University of Philadelphia Press, 2000. https://doi. org/10.9783/9780812200607
  10. Hallowell N. Doing the right things: Genetic risk and responsibility // Sociology of Heath and Illness. 1999. Vol. 21, iss. 5. pp. 597–621. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467- 9566.00175
  11. Raspberry K., Skinner D. Enacting genetic responsibility: Experiences of mothers who carry the fragile X gene // Sociology of Health & Illness. 2011. Vol. 33, iss. 3. P. 420–433. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467- 9566.2010.01289.x
  12. Rapp R. Testing Women, Testing the Fetus: The Social Impact of Amniocentesis. New York : Routledge, 1999. 376 p.
  13. Goldino L, Jackson L., Turchetti D., Hennessy C., Skirton H. Decision making and experiences of young adults undergoing presymtomatic genetic testing for familial cancer: A longitudinal grounded theory study // European Journal of Human Genetics. 2018. Vol. 26. P. 44–53. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-017-0030-1
  14. Su Y., Howard H. C., Borry P. Users’ motivations to purchase direct-to-consumer genome-wide testing: An exploratory study of personal stories // Journal of Community Genet. 2011. № 2. p. 135–146. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12687-011-0048-y
  15. Smith-Uffen M., Bartley N., Davies G., Best M. Motivations and barriers to pursue cancer genomic testing: A systematic review // Patient Education and Counseling. 2021. Vol. 104, iss. 6. P. 1325–1334. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.pec.2020.12.024
  16. Wessel J., Gupta J., de Groot M. Factors Motivating Individuals to Consider Genetic Testing for Type 2 Diabetes Risk Prediction // PLoS ONE. 2016. Vol. 11, iss. 1. e0147071. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0147071
  17. Wasson K., Sanders T. N., Hogan N. S., Cherny S., Helzlsouer K. J. Primary care patients’ views and decisions about, experience of and reactions to directto-consumer genetic testing: A longitudinal study // Journal of Community Genet. 2013. Vol. 4. P. 495–505. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12687-013-0156-y
  18. Oliver S., Cinidda C., Ongano G., Gorini A., Spinella F., Fiorentino F., Baldi N., Pravettoni G. What people really change after genetic testing (GT) performed in private labs: Results from an Italian study // European Journal of Human Genetics. 2022. Vol. 30. P. 62–72. https://doi. org/10.1038/s41431-021-00879-w
  19. Roberts J. S., Gornik M. C., Carere D. A., Uhlmann W. R., Ruffi n M. T., Green R.C. Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing: User Motivations, Decision Making, and Perceived Utility of Results // Public Health Genomics 2017. Vol. 20, iss. 1. P. 36–45. https://doi. org/10.1159/000455006
  20. Jordens Ch. F. C. Kerridge I. H., Stewart C. L., O’Brien T. A., Samuel G., Porter M., O’Connor M., Nassar N. Knowledge, beliefs, and decisions of pregnant australian women concerning donation and storage of umbilical cord blood: A population-based survey // Birth. 2014. Vol. 41, iss. 4. P. 360–366. https:// doi.org/10.1111/birt.12121
  21. Katz G., Mills A., Garcia J., Hooper K, McGuckin C., Platz A., Rebulla P., Salvaterra E., Schidt A. H., Torabadella M. Banking cord blood stem cells: Attitude and knowledge of pregnant women in fi ve European Countries // Transfusion. 2011. Vol. 51, iss. 3. P. 578– 586. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1537-2995.2010.02954.x
  22. Manegold G., Meyer-Monard S., Tichelli A., Granado Ch., Hosli I., Troeger C. Controversies in hybrid banking: Attitudes of Swiss public umbilical cord blood donors toward private and public banking // Archives of Gynecology Obstetrics. 2011. Vol. 284. P. 99–104. https://doi. org/10.1007/s00404-010-1607-x
  23. Fernandez C. V., Gordon K., Van den Hof M., Baylis F. Knowledge and attitudes of pregnant women with regard to collection, testing and banking of cord blood stem cell // Canadian Medical Association or its licensors. 2003. Vol. 168, iss. 6. P. 695–698.
  24. Богомягкова Е. С., Дупак А. А. Цифровой селфтрекинг в дискурсе социальных наук // Социология науки и техники. 2021. Т. 12, № 2. С. 155–174. https://doi.org/10.24412/2079-0910-2021-2-155-174
  25.  Богомягкова Е. С. Цифровые технологии в практиках заботы о здоровье: гендерные различия в российском контексте // Женщина в российском обществе. 2022. № 3. С. 90–107. https://doi.org/10.21064/ WinRS.2022.3.6
  26. Бердышева Е. С., Белявский Б. А. Вариативность ценности здоровья в социальных полях: вызовы и стимулы самосохранительных практик // Интеракция. Интервью. Интерпретация. 2021. Т. 13, № 1. С. 9–39. https://doi.org/10.19181/inter.2021.13.1.1
  27. Бердышева Е. С. Ценности самозаботы: «энтузиасты здоровья» и хэлсифицированное потребление // Интеракция. Интервью. Интерпретация. 2022. Т. 14, № 1. С. 58–88. https://doi.org/10.19181/¡nter.2022.14.1.3
  28. Журавлева И. В. Отношение к здоровью индивида и общества. М. : Наука, 2006. 237 с.
  29. Темкина А. «Экономика доверия» в платном сегменте родовспоможения: городская образованная женщина как потребитель и пациентка // Экономическая социология. 2017. Т. 18, № 3. С. 14–53. https://doi.org/10.17323/1726-3247-2017-3-14-53, EDN: ZBOGYJ
  30. Здравомыслова E., Ткач О. Культурные модели классового неравенства в сфере наемного домашнего труда в России // Laboratorium: Журнал социальных исследований. 2016. № 3. С. 68–99.
  31. Лехциер В. Л., Шекунова Ю. О. Генетизация с точки зрения генетиков: направления, проблемы и перспективы персонализированного и предиктивного молекулярно-генетического тестирования в России // Экономическая социология. 2022. Т. 23, № 3. С. 129–159. http://doi.org/10.17323/1726-3247-2022-3- 129-159
  32. Marzulla T., Roberts S., DeVries R., Koeller D. R., Green R. C., Uhlmann W. R. Genetic counseling following direct-to consumer genetic testing: Consumer perspectives // Journal of Genetic Counseling. 2021. Vol. 30, iss. 1. P. 329–334. https://doi.org/10.1002/jgc4.1309
Received: 
06.04.2023
Accepted: 
16.05.2023
Available online: 
31.08.2023
Short text (in English):
PDF icon sociologiya_2023_3-294-302.pdf
(downloads: 0)