Login to MyKarger

New to MyKarger? Click here to sign up.



Login with Facebook

Forgot your password?

Authors, Editors, Reviewers

For Manuscript Submission, Check or Review Login please go to Submission Websites List.

Submission Websites List

Institutional Login
(Shibboleth or Open Athens)

For the academic login, please select your country in the dropdown list. You will be redirected to verify your credentials.

Original Paper

Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing: User Motivations, Decision Making, and Perceived Utility of Results

Roberts J.S.a · Gornick M.C.b · Carere D.A.c · Uhlmann W.R.b, d · Ruffin M.T.e · Green R.C.f

Author affiliations

aDepartment of Health Behavior & Health Education, University of Michigan School of Public Health, and bDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI, USA; cDepartment of Pathology & Molecular Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada; dDepartment of Human Genetics, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI, eDepartment of Family and Community Medicine, Penn State Health Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, PA, and fDepartment of Medicine (Division of Genetics), Brigham & Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA

Related Articles for ""

Public Health Genomics 2017;20:36-45

Do you have an account?

Login Information





Contact Information










I have read the Karger Terms and Conditions and agree.



Login Information





Contact Information










I have read the Karger Terms and Conditions and agree.



To view the fulltext, please log in

To view the pdf, please log in

Buy

  • FullText & PDF
  • Unlimited re-access via MyKarger
  • Unrestricted printing, no saving restrictions for personal use
read more

CHF 38.00 *
EUR 35.00 *
USD 39.00 *

Select

KAB

Buy a Karger Article Bundle (KAB) and profit from a discount!

If you would like to redeem your KAB credit, please log in.


Save over 20% compared to the individual article price.
Learn more

Rent/Cloud

  • Rent for 48h to view
  • Buy Cloud Access for unlimited viewing via different devices
  • Synchronizing in the ReadCube Cloud
  • Printing and saving restrictions apply

Rental: USD 8.50
Cloud: USD 20.00


Select

Subscribe

  • Access to all articles of the subscribed year(s) guaranteed for 5 years
  • Unlimited re-access via Subscriber Login or MyKarger
  • Unrestricted printing, no saving restrictions for personal use
read more

Subcription rates


Select

* The final prices may differ from the prices shown due to specifics of VAT rules.

Article / Publication Details

First-Page Preview
Abstract of Original Paper

Received: September 06, 2016
Accepted: December 08, 2016
Published online: January 10, 2017
Issue release date: June 2017

Number of Print Pages: 10
Number of Figures: 0
Number of Tables: 5

ISSN: 1662-4246 (Print)
eISSN: 1662-8063 (Online)

For additional information: https://www.karger.com/PHG

Abstract

Background/Aims: To describe the interests, decision making, and responses of consumers of direct-to-consumer personal genomic testing (DTC-PGT) services. Methods: Prior to 2013 regulatory restrictions on DTC-PGT services, 1,648 consumers from 2 leading companies completed Web surveys before and after receiving test results. Results: Prior to testing, DTC-PGT consumers were as interested in ancestry (74% very interested) and trait information (72%) as they were in disease risks (72%). Among disease risks, heart disease (68% very interested), breast cancer (67%), and Alzheimer disease (66%) were of greatest interest prior to testing. Interest in disease risks was associated with female gender and poorer self-reported health (p < 0.01). Many consumers (38%) did not consider the possibility of unwanted information before purchasing services; this group was more likely to be older, male, and less educated (p < 0.05). After receiving results, 59% of respondents said test information would influence management of their health; 2% reported regret about seeking testing and 1% reported harm from results. Conclusion: DTC-PGT has attracted controversy because of the health-related information it provides, but nonmedical information is of equal or greater interest to consumers. Although many consumers did not fully consider potential risks prior to testing, DTC-PGT was generally perceived as useful in informing future health decisions.

© 2017 S. Karger AG, Basel


References

  1. Caulfield T, McGuire AL: Direct-to-consumer genetic testing: perceptions, problems, and policy responses. Annu Rev Med 2012;63:23-33.
  2. Vayena E: Direct-to-consumer genomics on the scales of autonomy. J Med Ethics 2015;41:310-314.
  3. Spencer DH, Lockwood C, Topol E, et al: Direct-to-consumer genetic testing: reliable or risky? Clin Chem 2011;57:1641-1644.
  4. Hudson K, Javitt G, Burke W, Byers P; American Society of Human Genetics Social Issues C: ASHG Statement* on direct-to-consumer genetic testing in the United States. Obstet Gynecol 2007;110:1392-1395.
  5. American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics: Direct-to-consumer genetic testing: a revised position statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. Genet Med 2016;18:207-208.
  6. National Society of Genetic Counselors: Direct access to genetic testing. 2015. http://nsgc.org/p/bl/et/blogaid=370 (accessed August 17, 2016).
  7. US Food and Drug Administration DoHahS. 23andMe, Inc. 2013. http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/EnforcementActions/WarningLetters/2013/ucm376296.htm (accessed August 17, 2016).
  8. Annas GJ, Elias S: 23andMe and the FDA. N Engl J Med 2014;370:985-988.
  9. Green RC, Farahany NA: Regulation: the FDA is overcautious on consumer genomics. Nature 2014;505:286-287.
  10. Roberts JS, Ostergren J: Direct-to-consumer genetic testing and personal genomics services: a review of recent empirical studies. Curr Genet Med Rep 2013;1:182-200.
  11. Bloss CS, Wineinger NE, Darst BF, Schork NJ, Topol EJ: Impact of direct-to-consumer genomic testing at long term follow-up. J Med Genet 2013;50:393-400.
  12. Gray SW, Hornik RC, Schwartz JS, Armstrong K: The impact of risk information exposure on women's beliefs about direct-to-consumer genetic testing for BRCA mutations. Clin Genet 2012;81:29-37.
  13. Egglestone C, Morris A, O'Brien A: Effect of direct-to-consumer genetic tests on health behaviour and anxiety: a survey of consumers and potential consumers. J Genet Couns 2013;22:565-575.
  14. Ostergren JE, Gornick MC, Carere DA, et al: How well do customers of direct-to-consumer personal genomic testing services comprehend genetic test results? Findings from the impact of personal genomics study. Public Health Genomics 2015;18:216-224.
  15. Carere DA, Kraft P, Kaphingst KA, Roberts JS, Green RC: Consumers report lower confidence in their genetics knowledge following direct-to-consumer personal genomic testing. Genet Med 2016;18:65-72.
  16. Carere DA, Couper MP, Crawford SD, et al: Design, methods, and participant characteristics of the Impact of Personal Genomics (PGen) Study, a prospective cohort study of direct-to-consumer personal genomic testing customers. Genome Med 2014;6:96.
  17. Krieger JL, Murray F, Roberts JS, Green RC: The impact of personal genomics on risk perceptions and medical decision-making. Nat Biotechnol 2016;34:912-918.
  18. Carere DA, VanderWeele TJ, Vassy JL, et al: Prescription medication changes following direct-to-consumer personal genomic testing: findings from the Impact of Personal Genomics (PGen) Study. Genet Med, Epub ahead of print.
  19. van der Wouden CH, Carere DA, Maitland-van der Zee AH, et al: Consumer perceptions of interactions with primary care providers after direct-to-consumer personal genomic testing. Ann Intern Med 2016;164:513-522.
  20. Ware JE Jr, Gandek B: Overview of the SF-36 Health Survey and the International Quality of Life Assessment (IQOLA) Project. J Clin Epidemiol 1998;51:903-912.
  21. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute: BMI Calculator. http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/educational/lose_wt/BMI/bmicalc.htm (accessed August 17, 2016).
  22. Brehaut JC, O'Connor AM, Wood TJ, et al: Validation of a decision regret scale. Med Decis Making 2003;23:281-292.
  23. US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Behavioral risk factor surveillance system survey data. Atlanta, US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2012.
  24. Bloss CS, Schork NJ, Topol EJ: Effect of direct-to-consumer genomewide profiling to assess disease risk. N Engl J Med 2011;364:524-534.
  25. Kaufman DJ, Bollinger JM, Dvoskin RL, Scott JA: Risky business: risk perception and the use of medical services among customers of DTC personal genetic testing. J Genet Couns 2012;21:413-422.
  26. Vence T: DNA ancestry for all. 2014. http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/40460/title/DNA-Ancestry-for-All/ (accessed August 17, 2016).
  27. Neumann PJ, Cohen JT, Hammitt JK, et al: Willingness-to-pay for predictive tests with no immediate treatment implications: a survey of US residents. Health Econ 2012;21:238-251.
  28. Roberts JS, Christensen KD, Green RC: Using Alzheimer's disease as a model for genetic risk disclosure: implications for personal genomics. Clin Genet 2011;80:407-414.
  29. Christensen KD, Roberts JS, Whitehouse PJ, et al: Disclosing pleiotropic effects during genetic risk assessment for Alzheimer's disease: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med 2016;164:155-163.
  30. Bunnik EM, Janssens AC, Schermer MH: Informed consent in direct-to-consumer personal genome testing: the outline of a model between specific and generic consent. Bioethics 2014;28:343-351.
  31. Francke U, Dijamco C, Kiefer AK, et al: Dealing with the unexpected: consumer responses to direct-access BRCA mutation testing. PeerJ 2013;1:e8.
  32. Meisel SF, Carere DA, Wardle J, et al: Explaining, not just predicting, drives interest in personal genomics. Genome Med 2015;7:74.
  33. Roberts JS: Patients' understanding and expectations about use of next generation sequencing in oncology. Ann Behav Med 2015;49(suppl 1):S70.

Article / Publication Details

First-Page Preview
Abstract of Original Paper

Received: September 06, 2016
Accepted: December 08, 2016
Published online: January 10, 2017
Issue release date: June 2017

Number of Print Pages: 10
Number of Figures: 0
Number of Tables: 5

ISSN: 1662-4246 (Print)
eISSN: 1662-8063 (Online)

For additional information: https://www.karger.com/PHG


Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer

Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.