PURPOSE: Examination of patients' responses to direct-to-consumer genetic susceptibility tests is needed to inform clinical practice. This study examined patients' recall and interpretation of, and responses to, genetic susceptibility test results provided directly by mail. METHODS: This observational study had three prospective assessments (before testing, 10 days after receiving results, and 3 months later). Participants were 199 patients aged 25-40 years who received free genetic susceptibility testing for eight common health conditions. RESULTS: More than 80% of the patients correctly recalled their results for the eight health conditions. Patients were unlikely to interpret genetic results as deterministic of health outcomes (mean = 6.0, s.d. = 0.8 on a scale of 1-7, 1 indicating strongly deterministic). In multivariate analysis, patients with the least deterministic interpretations were white (P = 0.0098), more educated (P = 0.0093), and least confused by results (P = 0.001). Only 1% talked about their results with a provider. CONCLUSION: Findings suggest that most patients will correctly recall their results and will not interpret genetics as the sole cause of diseases. The subset of those confused by results could benefit from consultation with a health-care provider, which could emphasize that health habits currently are the best predictors of risk. Providers could leverage patients' interest in genetic tests to encourage behavior changes to reduce disease risk.
PURPOSE: Examination of patients' responses to direct-to-consumer genetic susceptibility tests is needed to inform clinical practice. This study examined patients' recall and interpretation of, and responses to, genetic susceptibility test results provided directly by mail. METHODS: This observational study had three prospective assessments (before testing, 10 days after receiving results, and 3 months later). Participants were 199 patients aged 25-40 years who received free genetic susceptibility testing for eight common health conditions. RESULTS: More than 80% of the patients correctly recalled their results for the eight health conditions. Patients were unlikely to interpret genetic results as deterministic of health outcomes (mean = 6.0, s.d. = 0.8 on a scale of 1-7, 1 indicating strongly deterministic). In multivariate analysis, patients with the least deterministic interpretations were white (P = 0.0098), more educated (P = 0.0093), and least confused by results (P = 0.001). Only 1% talked about their results with a provider. CONCLUSION: Findings suggest that most patients will correctly recall their results and will not interpret genetics as the sole cause of diseases. The subset of those confused by results could benefit from consultation with a health-care provider, which could emphasize that health habits currently are the best predictors of risk. Providers could leverage patients' interest in genetic tests to encourage behavior changes to reduce disease risk.
Authors: Katherine M James; Clayton T Cowl; Jon C Tilburt; Pamela S Sinicrope; Marguerite E Robinson; Katrin R Frimannsdottir; Kristina Tiedje; Barbara A Koenig Journal: Mayo Clin Proc Date: 2011-10 Impact factor: 7.616
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
Authors: Colleen M McBride; Sharon Hensley Alford; Robert J Reid; Eric B Larson; Andreas D Baxevanis; Lawrence C Brody Journal: Genet Med Date: 2009-08 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Kevin Sweet; Shelly Hovick; Amy C Sturm; Tara Schmidlen; Erynn Gordon; Barbara Bernhardt; Lisa Wawak; Karen Wernke; Joseph McElroy; Laura Scheinfeldt; Amanda E Toland; J S Roberts; Michael Christman Journal: J Genet Couns Date: 2016-12-05 Impact factor: 2.537
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
Authors: S B Haga; W T Barry; R Mills; L Svetkey; S Suchindran; H F Willard; G S Ginsburg Journal: Public Health Genomics Date: 2014-02-27 Impact factor: 2.000