Literature DB >> 22278220

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

David J Kaufman1, Juli M Bollinger, Rachel L Dvoskin, Joan A Scott.   

Abstract

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22278220     DOI: 10.1007/s10897-012-9483-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Genet Couns        ISSN: 1059-7700            Impact factor:   2.537


  33 in total

1.  Health-care referrals from direct-to-consumer genetic testing.

Authors:  Monica A Giovanni; Matthew R Fickie; Lisa S Lehmann; Robert C Green; Lisa M Meckley; David Veenstra; Michael F Murray
Journal:  Genet Test Mol Biomarkers       Date:  2010-10-28

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

Review 4.  The future of direct-to-consumer clinical genetic tests.

Authors:  Felix W Frueh; Henry T Greely; Robert C Green; Stuart Hogarth; Sue Siegel
Journal:  Nat Rev Genet       Date:  2011-06-01       Impact factor: 53.242

5.  Direct-to-consumer testing: if consumers are not anxious, why are policymakers?

Authors:  Timothy Caulfield
Journal:  Hum Genet       Date:  2011-04-11       Impact factor: 4.132

6.  Social networkers' attitudes toward direct-to-consumer personal genome testing.

Authors:  Amy L McGuire; Christina M Diaz; Tao Wang; Susan G Hilsenbeck
Journal:  Am J Bioeth       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 11.229

7.  Genomic risk profiling: attitudes and use in personal and clinical care of primary care physicians who offer risk profiling.

Authors:  Susanne B Haga; Madeline M Carrig; Julianne M O'Daniel; Lori A Orlando; Ley A Killeya-Jones; Geoffrey S Ginsburg; Alex Cho
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2011-02-11       Impact factor: 5.128

8.  Risk perception among women receiving genetic counseling: a population-based follow-up study.

Authors:  Ellen M Mikkelsen; Lone Sunde; Christoffer Johansen; Søren P Johnsen
Journal:  Cancer Detect Prev       Date:  2007

Review 9.  Effects of communicating DNA-based disease risk estimates on risk-reducing behaviours.

Authors:  Theresa M Marteau; David P French; Simon J Griffin; A T Prevost; Stephen Sutton; Clare Watkinson; Sophie Attwood; Gareth J Hollands
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2010-10-06

10.  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

View more
  76 in total

1.  The Moral Reasoning of Genetic Dilemmas Amongst Jewish Israeli Undergraduate Students with Different Religious Affiliations and Scientific Backgrounds.

Authors:  Merav Siani; Orit Ben-Zvi Assaraf
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2015-12-07       Impact factor: 2.537

2.  Why do we pay for information that we won't use? A cognitive-based explanation for genetic information seeking.

Authors:  Alessandra Gorini; Gabriella Pravettoni
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2015-09-09       Impact factor: 4.246

3.  Case Report: Direct Access Genetic Testing and A False-Positive Result For Long QT Syndrome.

Authors:  Sarah Predham; Sara Hamilton; Alison M Elliott; William T Gibson
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2015-08-30       Impact factor: 2.537

4.  Discussing molecular testing in oncology care: Comparing patient and physician information preferences.

Authors:  Ana P M Pinheiro; Rachel H Pocock; Jeffrey M Switchenko; Margie D Dixon; Walid L Shaib; Suresh S Ramalingam; Rebecca D Pentz
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2017-01-31       Impact factor: 6.860

5.  Assessing the integration of genomic medicine in genetic counseling training programs.

Authors:  Jessica Profato; Erynn S Gordon; Shannan Dixon; Andrea Kwan
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2014-01-08       Impact factor: 2.537

6.  To ban or not to ban? Clinical geneticists' views on the regulation of direct-to-consumer genetic testing.

Authors:  Heidi Carmen Howard; Pascal Borry
Journal:  EMBO Rep       Date:  2012-08-14       Impact factor: 8.807

7.  Does personal genome testing drive service utilization in an adult preventive medicine clinic?

Authors:  Ny Hoang; Robin Hayeems; Jill Davies; Shuye Pu; Syed Wasim; Lea Velsher; James Aw; Sébastien Chénier; Dimitri J Stavropoulos; Riyana Babul-Hirji; Rosanna Weksberg; Cheryl Shuman
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2017-04-03

8.  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

9.  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

Review 10.  Evolving approaches to the ethical management of genomic data.

Authors:  Jean E McEwen; Joy T Boyer; Kathie Y Sun
Journal:  Trends Genet       Date:  2013-02-28       Impact factor: 11.639

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.