Literature DB >> 21964170

Impact of direct-to-consumer predictive genomic testing on risk perception and worry among patients receiving routine care in a preventive health clinic.

Katherine M James1, Clayton T Cowl, Jon C Tilburt, Pamela S Sinicrope, Marguerite E Robinson, Katrin R Frimannsdottir, Kristina Tiedje, Barbara A Koenig.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of direct-to-consumer (DTC) predictive genomic risk information on perceived risk and worry in the context of routine clinical care. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients attending a preventive medicine clinic between June 1 and December 18, 2009, were randomly assigned to receive either genomic risk information from a DTC product plus usual care (n=74) or usual care alone (n=76). At intervals of 1 week and 1 year after their clinic visit, participants completed surveys containing validated measures of risk perception and levels of worry associated with the 12 conditions assessed by the DTC product.
RESULTS: Of 345 patients approached, 150 (43%) agreed to participate, 64 (19%) refused, and 131 (38%) did not respond. Compared with those receiving usual care, participants who received genomic risk information initially rated their risk as higher for 4 conditions (abdominal aneurysm [P=.001], Graves disease [P=.04], obesity [P=.01], and osteoarthritis [P=.04]) and lower for one (prostate cancer [P=.02]). Although differences were not significant, they also reported higher levels of worry for 7 conditions and lower levels for 5 others. At 1 year, there were no significant differences between groups.
CONCLUSION: Predictive genomic risk information modestly influences risk perception and worry. The extent and direction of this influence may depend on the condition being tested and its baseline prominence in preventive health care and may attenuate with time.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21964170      PMCID: PMC3184022          DOI: 10.4065/mcp.2011.0190

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mayo Clin Proc        ISSN: 0025-6196            Impact factor:   7.616


  25 in total

Review 1.  Genetic risk and behavioural change.

Authors:  T M Marteau; C Lerman
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2001-04-28

2.  Bioethical and clinical dilemmas of direct-to-consumer personal genomic testing: the problem of misattributed equivalence.

Authors:  Charis Eng; Richard R Sharp
Journal:  Sci Transl Med       Date:  2010-02-03       Impact factor: 17.956

3.  Whole-genome sequencing breaks the cost barrier.

Authors:  Laura Bonetta
Journal:  Cell       Date:  2010-06-11       Impact factor: 41.582

4.  The path to personalized medicine.

Authors:  Margaret A Hamburg; Francis S Collins
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2010-06-15       Impact factor: 91.245

5.  Prediction of individual genetic risk to disease from genome-wide association studies.

Authors:  Naomi R Wray; Michael E Goddard; Peter M Visscher
Journal:  Genome Res       Date:  2007-09-04       Impact factor: 9.043

6.  Effect of direct-to-consumer genomewide profiling to assess disease risk.

Authors:  Cinnamon S Bloss; Nicholas J Schork; Eric J Topol
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2011-01-12       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 7.  Direct-to-consumer personal genome testing: ethical and regulatory issues that arise from wanting to 'know' your DNA.

Authors:  G N Samuel; C F C Jordens; I Kerridge
Journal:  Intern Med J       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 2.048

Review 8.  Cancer risk notification: psychosocial and ethical implications.

Authors:  C Lerman; B K Rimer; P F Engstrom
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  1991-07       Impact factor: 44.544

9.  Recommendations from the EGAPP Working Group: genomic profiling to assess cardiovascular risk to improve cardiovascular health.

Authors: 
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2010-12       Impact factor: 8.822

10.  ACMG statement on direct-to-consumer genetic testing.

Authors: 
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2004 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 8.822

View more
  19 in total

Review 1.  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

2.  Consumer Perspectives on Access to Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing: Role of Demographic Factors and the Testing Experience.

Authors:  Sarah E Gollust; Stacy W Gray; Deanna Alexis Carere; Barbara A Koenig; Lisa Soleymani Lehmann; Amy L McGUIRE; Richard R Sharp; Kayte Spector-Bagdady; N A Wang; Robert C Green; J Scott Roberts
Journal:  Milbank Q       Date:  2017-06       Impact factor: 4.911

3.  Teaching genomic counseling: preparing the genetic counseling workforce for the genomic era.

Authors:  Gillian W Hooker; Kelly E Ormond; Kevin Sweet; Barbara B Biesecker
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2014-02-08       Impact factor: 2.537

4.  Influence of individual differences in disease perception on consumer response to direct-to-consumer genomic testing.

Authors:  D L Boeldt; N J Schork; E J Topol; C S Bloss
Journal:  Clin Genet       Date:  2014-06-06       Impact factor: 4.438

5.  Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing and Personal Genomics Services: A Review of Recent Empirical Studies.

Authors:  J Scott Roberts; Jenny Ostergren
Journal:  Curr Genet Med Rep       Date:  2013-09

6.  Utilization of Genetic Counseling after Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing: Findings from the Impact of Personal Genomics (PGen) Study.

Authors:  Diane R Koeller; Wendy R Uhlmann; Deanna Alexis Carere; Robert C Green; J Scott Roberts
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2017-05-16       Impact factor: 2.537

7.  Harm, hype and evidence: ELSI research and policy guidance.

Authors:  Timothy Caulfield; Subhashini Chandrasekharan; Yann Joly; Robert Cook-Deegan
Journal:  Genome Med       Date:  2013-03-26       Impact factor: 11.117

8.  Public trust in genomic risk assessment for type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Authors:  Rachel Mills; William Barry; Susanne B Haga
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2013-12-03       Impact factor: 2.537

9.  Patients' understanding of and responses to multiplex genetic susceptibility test results.

Authors:  Kimberly A Kaphingst; Colleen M McBride; Christopher Wade; Sharon Hensley Alford; Robert Reid; Eric Larson; Andreas D Baxevanis; Lawrence C Brody
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2012-07       Impact factor: 8.822

10.  Navigating a research partnership between academia and industry to assess the impact of personalized genetic testing.

Authors:  Lisa Soleymani Lehmann; David J Kaufman; Richard R Sharp; Tanya A Moreno; Joanna L Mountain; J Scott Roberts; Robert C Green
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2012-01-12       Impact factor: 8.822

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.