Literature DB >> 21654153

Motivations and perceptions of early adopters of personalized genomics: perspectives from research participants.

S E Gollust1, E S Gordon, C Zayac, G Griffin, M F Christman, R E Pyeritz, L Wawak, B A Bernhardt.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND/AIMS: To predict the potential public health impact of personal genomics, empirical research on public perceptions of these services is needed. In this study, 'early adopters' of personal genomics were surveyed to assess their motivations, perceptions and intentions.
METHODS: Participants were recruited from everyone who registered to attend an enrollment event for the Coriell Personalized Medicine Collaborative, a United States-based (Camden, N.J.) research study of the utility of personalized medicine, between March 31, 2009 and April 1, 2010 (n = 369). Participants completed an Internet-based survey about their motivations, awareness of personalized medicine, perceptions of study risks and benefits, and intentions to share results with health care providers.
RESULTS: Respondents were motivated to participate for their own curiosity and to find out their disease risk to improve their health. Fewer than 10% expressed deterministic perspectives about genetic risk, but 32% had misperceptions about the research study or personal genomic testing. Most respondents perceived the study to have health-related benefits. Nearly all (92%) intended to share their results with physicians, primarily to request specific medical recommendations.
CONCLUSION: Early adopters of personal genomics are prospectively enthusiastic about using genomic profiling information to improve their health, in close consultation with their physicians. This suggests that early users (i.e. through direct-to-consumer companies or research) may follow up with the health care system. Further research should address whether intentions to seek care match actual behaviors.
Copyright © 2011 S. Karger AG, Basel.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21654153      PMCID: PMC3225236          DOI: 10.1159/000327296

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Public Health Genomics        ISSN: 1662-4246            Impact factor:   2.000


  34 in total

1.  Genetic risk information for common diseases may indeed be already useful for prevention and early detection.

Authors:  J Gulcher; K Stefansson
Journal:  Eur J Clin Invest       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 4.686

Review 2.  The current landscape for direct-to-consumer genetic testing: legal, ethical, and policy issues.

Authors:  Stuart Hogarth; Gail Javitt; David Melzer
Journal:  Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 8.929

3.  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

4.  Direct-to-consumer genetic testing: good, bad or benign?

Authors:  T Caulfield; N M Ries; P N Ray; C Shuman; B Wilson
Journal:  Clin Genet       Date:  2009-11-21       Impact factor: 4.438

5.  Personalized medicine in the era of genomics.

Authors:  Wylie Burke; Bruce M Psaty
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2007-10-10       Impact factor: 56.272

6.  Participation in genetic testing research varies by social group.

Authors:  Sharon Hensley Alford; Colleen M McBride; Robert J Reid; Eric B Larson; Andreas D Baxevanis; Lawrence C Brody
Journal:  Public Health Genomics       Date:  2010-03-18       Impact factor: 2.000

7.  Considerations for the impact of personal genome information: a study of genomic profiling among genetics and genomics professionals.

Authors:  Julianne M O'Daniel; Susanne B Haga; Huntington F Willard
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2010-03-30       Impact factor: 2.537

8.  A Community's Awareness and Perceptions of Genomic Medicine.

Authors:  S Hahn; S Letvak; K Powell; C Christianson; D Wallace; M Speer; P Lietz; S Blanton; J Vance; M Pericak-Vance; V C Henrich
Journal:  Public Health Genomics       Date:  2009-05-13       Impact factor: 2.000

9.  Direct to consumer genetic testing: Avoiding a culture war.

Authors:  James P Evans; Robert C Green
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 8.822

10.  Great expectations: views of genetic research participants regarding current and future genetic studies.

Authors:  Gail Henderson; Joanne Garrett; Jada Bussey-Jones; Mairead Eastin Moloney; Connie Blumenthal; Giselle Corbie-Smith
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 8.822

View more
  77 in total

1.  An exploration of genetic health professionals' experience with direct-to-consumer genetic testing in their clinical practice.

Authors:  Gemma R Brett; Sylvia A Metcalfe; David J Amor; Jane L Halliday
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2012-02-08       Impact factor: 4.246

2.  Implications of Internet availability of genomic information for public health practice.

Authors:  B W Hesse; N K Arora; M J Khoury
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.  Direct-to-consumer personal genomic testing: a case study and practical recommendations for “genomic counseling”.

Authors:  Amy C Sturm; Kandamurugu Manickam
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 2.537

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

7.  Awareness, attitudes and perspectives of direct-to-consumer genetic testing in Greece: a survey of potential consumers.

Authors:  Vasiliki Mavroidopoulou; Ellie Xera; Vasiliki Mollaki
Journal:  J Hum Genet       Date:  2015-06-04       Impact factor: 3.172

Review 8.  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

9.  Interest and informational preferences regarding genomic testing for modest increases in colorectal cancer risk.

Authors:  A E Anderson; K G Flores; W Boonyasiriwat; A Gammon; W Kohlmann; W C Birmingham; M D Schwartz; J Samadder; K Boucher; A Y Kinney
Journal:  Public Health Genomics       Date:  2014-01-14       Impact factor: 2.000

10.  Behavioral and psychosocial responses to genomic testing for colorectal cancer risk.

Authors:  Kristi D Graves; Kara-Grace Leventhal; Rachel Nusbaum; Yasmin Salehizadeh; Gillian W Hooker; Beth N Peshkin; Morgan Butrick; William Tuong; Jeena Mathew; David Goerlitz; Mary B Fishman; Peter G Shields; Marc D Schwartz
Journal:  Genomics       Date:  2013-04-11       Impact factor: 5.736

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.