Reflections on and Future Directions in Humility and Forgiveness Research

Research on humility and forgiveness has reached an important milestone. Scholars are transitioning from largely studying these character strengths in convenience samples (typically university undergraduates) to conducting studies in diverse samples that more accurately reflect the overall adult population in the United States. At important junctures like these, the field needs to both look back and learn from the work to date, as well as to look forward at the new questions that can now bed addressed with these expanded samples. In looking back, previous scholarship demonstrates a strong synthesis between forgiveness and humility, indicating the value of examining these characteristics together. Noel Card (this issue)’s meta-analyses of previous studies’ use of forgiveness and humility measures is also quite timely as it highlights the strengths of various measures, as well as where future measurement work is still needed. In looking forward, the remaining four articles within this issue (Krause, this issue; Hill, this issue; Webster, Ajrouch, & Antonucci, this issue; Antonucci, Ajrouch, Webster, & Birditt, this issue) raise, and begin to address, important developmental questions surrounding forgiveness and humility, such as between group differences, the role of social context, the impact of life stage, and adversity’s possible influence. Cumulatively, these papers point towards the critical questions the field of forgiveness and humility scholars need to address, especially as interest grows in application and intervention development.     

Substance use treatment programs in the active duty US military: A narrative review

Substance use disorders (SUDs) are a growing problem for the U.S. military. Each branch of the military has its own dedicated substance abuse treatment program. However, there has been limited attention to the research conducted on these programs. The purpose of this narrative review is to describe SUD treatment programs in the U.S. military and to review the extant research published between 2001–2015. Fourteen peer-reviewed articles, 2 official reports, 1 book chapter, 1 thesis, and 1 dissertation were identified. Most SUD treatment programs are nonconfidential, although a confidential program is being piloted by the Army. Recently, the programs have increased their focus on assessment and treatment of comorbid psychological disorders. Further research is required to examine the efficacy, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of the treatment programs.     

Risky Business: Risk Perception and the Use of Medical Services among Customers of DTC Personal Genetic Testing

Direct-to-consumer genetic testing has generated speculation about how customers will interpret results and how these interpretations will influence healthcare use and behavior; however, few empirical data on these topics exist. We conducted an online survey of DTC customers of 23andMe, deCODEme, and Navigenics to begin to address these questions. Random samples of U.S. DTC customers were invited to participate. Survey topics included demographics, perceptions of two sample DTC results, and health behaviors following DTC testing. Of 3,167 DTC customers invited, 33% (n?=?1,048) completed the survey. Forty-three percent of respondents had sought additional information about a health condition tested; 28% had discussed their results with a healthcare professional; and 9% had followed up with additional lab tests. Sixteen percent of respondents had changed a medication or supplement regimen, and one-third said they were being more careful about their diet. Many of these health-related behaviors were significantly associated with responses to a question that asked how participants would perceive their colon cancer risk (as low, moderate, or high) if they received a test result showing an 11% lifetime risk, as compared to 5% risk in the general population. Respondents who would consider themselves to be at high risk for colon cancer were significantly more likely to have sought information about a disease (p?=?0.03), discussed results with a physician (p?=?0.05), changed their diet (p?=?0.02), and started exercising more (p?=?0.01). Participants’ personal health contexts—including personal and family history of disease and quality of self-perceived health—were also associated with health-related behaviors after testing. Subjective interpretations of genetic risk data and personal context appear to be related to health behaviors among DTC customers. Sharing DTC test results with healthcare professionals may add perceived utility to the tests.     

Perspectives on Genetic Testing and Return of Results from the First Cohort of Presymptomatically Tested Individuals At Risk of Huntington Disease

This qualitative study gathered opinions about genetic testing from people who received presymptomatic testing for Huntington’s disease (HD) 20–30 years ago and have lived with the implications of that testing for decades. During the last section of a semi-structured interview, participants were asked open-ended questions about their opinions on the importance of autonomy in the decision to be tested for HD, whether a formal HD testing protocol is necessary, whether physician ordering for HD is acceptable without a formal protocol, whether online direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing for HD is acceptable, and whether incidental/secondary findings should be returned in the context of whole exome/genome sequencing. Most—but not all—participants were in favor of an individual’s right to decide whether and when to pursue HD testing, use of a formal HD testing protocol, and returning medically actionable secondary findings. However, the majority of participants were opposed not only to physician ordering and DTC HD testing in the absence of a formal protocol but also to returning a secondary finding of an expanded HD allele. This study presents the opinions of a unique and extremely well-informed cohort on issues that need to be taken into careful consideration by genetic counselors and other medical professionals who are developing genetic testing protocols, making decisions about the availability of genetic tests, and making decisions about whether and how to return incidental findings.