Literature DB >> 20386454

Informational content, literacy demands, and usability of websites offering health-related genetic tests directly to consumers.

Christina R Lachance1, Lori A H Erby, Beth M Ford, Vincent C Allen, Kimberly A Kaphingst.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: As direct-to-consumer genetic testing becomes more available, a diverse group of consumers, including those with limited health literacy, may consider testing. In light of concerns raised about direct-to-consumer genetic testing, this study sought to critically examine whether the informational content, literacy demands, and usability of health-related direct-to-consumer websites met existing recommendations.
METHODS: A content analysis was performed on 29 health-related direct-to-consumer websites. Two coders independently evaluated each website for informational content (e.g., benefits, limitations), literacy demands (e.g., reading level), and usability (e.g., ease of navigation).
RESULTS: Most sites presented health conditions and some markers for which they tested, benefits of testing, a description of the testing process, and their privacy policy. Fewer cited scientific literature, explained test limitations, or provided an opportunity to consult a health professional. Key informational content was difficult to locate on most sites. Few sites gave sample disease risk estimates or used common language and explained technical terms consistently. Average reading level was grade 15.
CONCLUSION: The quality of informational content, literacy demands, and usability across health-related direct-to-consumer websites varied widely. Many users would struggle to find and understand the important information. For consumers to better understand the content on these sites and evaluate the meaning of the tests for their health, sites should lower the demands placed on users by distilling and prioritizing the key informational content while simultaneously attending to the reading level and usability elements. In the absence of regulation compelling such changes, government agencies or professional organizations may need to increase consumer and provider awareness of these issues.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20386454      PMCID: PMC2997043          DOI: 10.1097/GIM.0b013e3181dbd8b2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Genet Med        ISSN: 1098-3600            Impact factor:   8.822


  32 in total

1.  Accessibility of web sites containing colorectal cancer information to adults with limited literacy (United States).

Authors:  Kimberly A Kaphingst; Christine J Zanfini; Karen M Emmons
Journal:  Cancer Causes Control       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 2.506

2.  A critical appraisal of the scientific basis of commercial genomic profiles used to assess health risks and personalize health interventions.

Authors:  A Cecile J W Janssens; Marta Gwinn; Linda A Bradley; Ben A Oostra; Cornelia M van Duijn; Muin J Khoury
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 11.025

3.  Health-related direct-to-consumer genetic tests: a public health assessment and analysis of practices related to Internet-based tests for risk of thrombosis.

Authors:  K A B Goddard; J Robitaille; N F Dowling; A R Parrado; J Fishman; L A Bradley; C A Moore; M J Khoury
Journal:  Public Health Genomics       Date:  2008-11-26       Impact factor: 2.000

4.  Personal genomes: Misdirected precaution.

Authors:  Barbara Prainsack; Jenny Reardon; Richard Hindmarsh; Herbert Gottweis; Ursula Naue; Jeantine E Lunshof
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2008-11-06       Impact factor: 49.962

Review 5.  Developing the blueprint for a genetic testing registry.

Authors:  G Javitt; S Katsanis; J Scott; K Hudson
Journal:  Public Health Genomics       Date:  2009-06-29       Impact factor: 2.000

6.  Direct-to-consumer/patient advertising of genetic testing: a position statement of the American College of Clinical Pharmacology.

Authors:  Barbara Ameer; Norberto Krivoy
Journal:  J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 3.126

7.  An agenda for personalized medicine.

Authors:  Pauline C Ng; Sarah S Murray; Samuel Levy; J Craig Venter
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2009-10-08       Impact factor: 49.962

8.  Risk information exposure and direct-to-consumer genetic testing for BRCA mutations among women with a personal or family history of breast or ovarian cancer.

Authors:  Stacy W Gray; Cristin O'Grady; Lauren Karp; Daniel Smith; J Sanford Schwartz; Robert C Hornik; Katrina Armstrong
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2009-03-24       Impact factor: 4.254

9.  The on-line promotion and sale of nutrigenomic services.

Authors:  Rene Sterling
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 8.822

10.  Health care provider and consumer awareness, perceptions, and use of direct-to-consumer personal genomic tests, United States, 2008.

Authors:  Katherine Kolor; Tiebin Liu; Jeanette St Pierre; Muin J Khoury
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 8.822

View more
  42 in total

1.  Users' motivations to purchase direct-to-consumer genome-wide testing: an exploratory study of personal stories.

Authors:  Yeyang Su; Heidi C Howard; Pascal Borry
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2011-05-28

2.  Genetics blogs as a public health tool: assessing credibility and influence.

Authors:  L Wagner; R Paquin; S Persky
Journal:  Public Health Genomics       Date:  2012-04-04       Impact factor: 2.000

3.  Neither as harmful as feared by critics nor as empowering as promised by providers: risk information offered direct to consumer by personal genomics companies.

Authors:  Anders Nordgren
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2012-04-05

4.  Which way for genetic-test regulation? Assign regulation appropriate to the level of risk.

Authors:  Gail Javitt
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2010-08-12       Impact factor: 49.962

5.  Risky business: risk perception and the use of medical services among customers of DTC personal genetic testing.

Authors:  David J Kaufman; Juli M Bollinger; Rachel L Dvoskin; Joan A Scott
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2012-01-26       Impact factor: 2.537

Review 6.  Communicating genetic risk information for common disorders in the era of genomic medicine.

Authors:  Denise M Lautenbach; Kurt D Christensen; Jeffrey A Sparks; Robert C Green
Journal:  Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet       Date:  2013       Impact factor: 8.929

Review 7.  Direct-to-consumer personalized genomic testing.

Authors:  Cinnamon S Bloss; Burcu F Darst; Eric J Topol; Nicholas J Schork
Journal:  Hum Mol Genet       Date:  2011-08-09       Impact factor: 6.150

8.  Self-reported race and ethnicity of US biobank participants compared to the US Census.

Authors:  Elizabeth Gross Cohn; Nalo Hamilton; Elaine L Larson; Janet K Williams
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2017-06-16

9.  Factors Associated with Acceptability, Consideration and Intention of Uptake of Direct-To-Consumer Genetic Testing: A Survey Study.

Authors:  Kelly F J Stewart; Daša Kokole; Anke Wesselius; Annemie M W J Schols; Maurice P Zeegers; Hein de Vries; Liesbeth A D M van Osch
Journal:  Public Health Genomics       Date:  2018-10-25       Impact factor: 2.000

10.  Consumers' use of web-based information and their decisions about multiplex genetic susceptibility testing.

Authors:  Kimberly A Kaphingst; Colleen M McBride; Christopher Wade; Sharon Hensley Alford; Lawrence C Brody; Andreas D Baxevanis
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2010-09-29       Impact factor: 5.428

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.