Literature DB >> 23384116

Characteristics of genomic test consumers who spontaneously share results with their health care provider.

Burcu F Darst1, Lisa Madlensky, Nicholas J Schork, Eric J Topol, Cinnamon S Bloss.   

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the characteristics of direct-to-consumer (DTC) genomic test consumers who spontaneously shared their test results with their health care provider. Utilizing data from the Scripps Genomic Health Initiative, we compared demographic, behavioral, and attitudinal characteristics of DTC genomic test consumers who shared their results with their physician or health care provider versus those who did not share. We also compared genomic risk estimates between the two groups. Of 2,024 individuals assessed at approximately 6 months post testing, 540 individuals (26.5%) reported sharing their results with their physician or health care provider. Those who shared were older (p < .001), had a higher income (p = .01), were more likely to be married (p = .005), and were more likely to identify with a religion (p = .004). As assessed prior to undergoing testing, sharers also reported higher levels of exercise (p = .003), lower fat intake (p = .02), fewer overall concerns about testing (p = .001), and fewer concerns related to the privacy of their genomic information (p = .03). The genomic disease risk estimates disclosed were not associated with sharing. Thus, in a DTC genomic testing context, physicians and other health care providers may be more likely to encounter patients who are more health conscious and have fewer concerns about the privacy of their genomic information. Genomic risk itself does not appear to be a primary determinant of sharing behavior among consumers.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23384116      PMCID: PMC3679226          DOI: 10.1080/10410236.2012.717216

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Commun        ISSN: 1041-0236


  8 in total

1.  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

2.  Science and regulation. Regulating direct-to-consumer personal genome testing.

Authors:  Amy L McGuire; Barbara J Evans; Timothy Caulfield; Wylie Burke
Journal:  Science       Date:  2010-10-08       Impact factor: 47.728

3.  Clinical validity and clinical utility of genetic tests.

Authors:  Wylie Burke
Journal:  Curr Protoc Hum Genet       Date:  2009-01

4.  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 5.  Disclosure of CAM use to medical practitioners: a review of qualitative and quantitative studies.

Authors:  A Robinson; M R McGrail
Journal:  Complement Ther Med       Date:  2004 Jun-Sep       Impact factor: 2.446

6.  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

7.  Characteristics of users of online personalized genomic risk assessments: implications for physician-patient interactions.

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

8.  Consumer perceptions of direct-to-consumer personalized genomic risk assessments.

Authors:  Cinnamon S Bloss; Laura Ornowski; Elana Silver; Michele Cargill; Vance Vanier; Nicholas J Schork; Eric J Topol
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 8.822

  8 in total
  13 in total

1.  Predictive genetic testing, risk communication, and risk perception: an international expert meeting in Berlin, Germany.

Authors:  Eva Fisher; Steffi Achilles; Holger Tönnies
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2013-12-10

2.  Attitudes on pharmacogenetic testing in psychiatric patients with treatment-resistant depression.

Authors:  Michael J McCarthy; Yucui Chen; Anna Demodena; Eileen Fisher; Shahrokh Golshan; Trisha Suppes; John R Kelsoe
Journal:  Depress Anxiety       Date:  2020-07-15       Impact factor: 6.505

3.  Engagement with Genetic Information and Uptake of Genetic Testing: the Role of Trust and Personal Cancer History.

Authors:  Megan C Roberts; Jennifer M Taber; William M Klein
Journal:  J Cancer Educ       Date:  2018-08       Impact factor: 2.037

4.  Information-seeking and sharing behavior following genomic testing for diabetes risk.

Authors:  Rachel Mills; Jill Powell; William Barry; Susanne B Haga
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2014-06-14       Impact factor: 2.537

5.  Prevalence and correlates of receiving and sharing high-penetrance cancer genetic test results: findings from the Health Information National Trends Survey.

Authors:  Jennifer M Taber; Christine Q Chang; Tram K Lam; Elizabeth M Gillanders; Jada G Hamilton; Sheri D Schully
Journal:  Public Health Genomics       Date:  2015       Impact factor: 2.000

Review 6.  Behavioural changes, sharing behaviour and psychological responses after receiving direct-to-consumer genetic test results: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Kelly F J Stewart; Anke Wesselius; Maartje A C Schreurs; Annemie M W J Schols; Maurice P Zeegers
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2017-06-29

7.  Predispositional genome sequencing in healthy adults: design, participant characteristics, and early outcomes of the PeopleSeq Consortium.

Authors:  Emilie S Zoltick; Michael D Linderman; Molly A McGinniss; Erica Ramos; Madeleine P Ball; George M Church; Debra G B Leonard; Stacey Pereira; Amy L McGuire; C Thomas Caskey; Saskia C Sanderson; Eric E Schadt; Daiva E Nielsen; Scott D Crawford; Robert C Green
Journal:  Genome Med       Date:  2019-02-27       Impact factor: 11.117

8.  openSNP--a crowdsourced web resource for personal genomics.

Authors:  Bastian Greshake; Philipp E Bayer; Helge Rausch; Julia Reda
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-03-19       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 9.  Internet-Based Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Loredana Covolo; Sara Rubinelli; Elisabetta Ceretti; Umberto Gelatti
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2015-12-14       Impact factor: 5.428

10.  Consumer use and response to online third-party raw DNA interpretation services.

Authors:  Catharine Wang; Tiernan J Cahill; Andrew Parlato; Blake Wertz; Qiankun Zhong; Tricia Norkunas Cunningham; James J Cummings
Journal:  Mol Genet Genomic Med       Date:  2017-11-02       Impact factor: 2.183

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.