Literature DB >> 23547022

Effect of direct-to-consumer genetic tests on health behaviour and anxiety: a survey of consumers and potential consumers.

Corin Egglestone1, Anne Morris, Ann O'Brien.   

Abstract

Direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic tests can be purchased over the internet. Some companies claim to provide relative genetic risks for various diseases and thus encourage healthy behaviour. There are concerns that exposure to such information may actually discourage healthy behaviour or increase health anxiety. An online survey was conducted (n = 275). Respondents were composed of individuals who had purchased a DTC genetic test and received their results (consumers, n = 189), as well as individuals who were either awaiting test results or considering purchasing a test (potential consumers, n = 86). Consumers were asked if their health behaviour or health anxiety had changed after receiving their results. Respondents' current health behaviour and health anxiety were queried and compared. In total, 27.3 % of consumers claimed a change in health behaviour, all either positive or neutral, with no reported cessation of any existing health behaviour. A change in health anxiety was claimed by 24.6 % of consumers, 85.3 % of which were a reduction. Consumers had significantly better health behaviour scores than potential consumers (p = 0.02), with no significant difference in health anxiety. This study points towards an association between receipt of DTC genetic test results and increased adoption of healthy behaviours for a minority of consumers based on self-report, with more mixed results in relation to health anxiety.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23547022     DOI: 10.1007/s10897-013-9582-6

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


  14 in total

Review 1.  Effectiveness of testing for genetic susceptibility to smoking-related diseases on smoking cessation outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Chris Smerecnik; Janaica E J Grispen; Marieke Quaak
Journal:  Tob Control       Date:  2011-09-26       Impact factor: 7.552

2.  Illusions of scientific legitimacy: misrepresented science in the direct-to-consumer genetic-testing marketplace.

Authors:  Amy B Vashlishan Murray; Michael J Carson; Corey A Morris; Jon Beckwith
Journal:  Trends Genet       Date:  2010-09-09       Impact factor: 11.639

Review 3.  Consumers' views of direct-to-consumer genetic information.

Authors:  Colleen M McBride; Christopher H Wade; Kimberly A Kaphingst
Journal:  Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet       Date:  2010       Impact factor: 8.929

Review 4.  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

5.  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

6.  "It's not like judgment day": public understanding of and reactions to personalized genomic risk information.

Authors:  Erynn S Gordon; Georgia Griffin; Lisa Wawak; Hauchie Pang; Sarah E Gollust; Barbara A Bernhardt
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2011-12-17       Impact factor: 2.537

7.  Informed choice in direct-to-consumer genetic testing (DTCGT) websites: a content analysis of benefits, risks, and limitations.

Authors:  Amanda Singleton; Lori Hamby Erby; Kathryn V Foisie; Kimberly A Kaphingst
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2011-12-23       Impact factor: 2.537

Review 8.  Using Alzheimer's disease as a model for genetic risk disclosure: implications for personal genomics.

Authors:  J S Roberts; K D Christensen; R C Green
Journal:  Clin Genet       Date:  2011-07-18       Impact factor: 4.438

9.  Informational content, literacy demands, and usability of websites offering health-related genetic tests directly to consumers.

Authors:  Christina R Lachance; Lori A H Erby; Beth M Ford; Vincent C Allen; Kimberly A Kaphingst
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2010-05       Impact factor: 8.822

Review 10.  Cancer genetic risk assessment for individuals at risk of familial breast cancer.

Authors:  Jennifer S Hilgart; Bernadette Coles; Rachel Iredale
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2012-02-15
View more
  19 in total

Review 1.  Obesity Genes, Personalized Medicine, and Public Health Policy.

Authors:  Timothy Caulfield
Journal:  Curr Obes Rep       Date:  2015-09

2.  The effect of disease risk probability and disease type on interest in clinic-based versus direct-to-consumer genetic testing services.

Authors:  Kerry Sherman; Laura-Kate Shaw; Katrina Champion; Fernanda Caldeira; Margaret McCaskill
Journal:  J Behav Med       Date:  2015-03-27

3.  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

4.  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

5.  Making Sense of SNPs: Women's Understanding and Experiences of Receiving a Personalized Profile of Their Breast Cancer Risks.

Authors:  Mary-Anne Young; Laura Elenor Forrest; Victoria-Mae Rasmussen; Paul James; Gillian Mitchell; Sarah Dilys Sawyer; Katrina Reeve; Nina Hallowell
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2017-11-22       Impact factor: 2.537

6.  Predictors of adverse psychological experiences surrounding genome-wide profiling for disease risk.

Authors:  K M Broady; K E Ormond; E J Topol; N J Schork; Cinnamon S Bloss
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2017-11-13

Review 7.  Nutritional Genomics and Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing: An Overview.

Authors:  Marta Guasch-Ferré; Hassan S Dashti; Jordi Merino
Journal:  Adv Nutr       Date:  2018-03-01       Impact factor: 8.701

8.  Personal Genomic Testing for Cancer Risk: Results From the Impact of Personal Genomics Study.

Authors:  Stacy W Gray; Sarah E Gollust; Deanna Alexis Carere; Clara A Chen; Angel Cronin; Sarah S Kalia; Huma Q Rana; Mack T Ruffin; Catharine Wang; J Scott Roberts; Robert C Green
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2016-12-12       Impact factor: 44.544

9.  Family secrets: Experiences and outcomes of participating in direct-to-consumer genetic relative-finder services.

Authors:  Christi J Guerrini; Jill O Robinson; Cinnamon C Bloss; Whitney Bash Brooks; Stephanie M Fullerton; Brianne Kirkpatrick; Sandra Soo-Jin Lee; Mary Majumder; Stacey Pereira; Olivia Schuman; Amy L McGuire
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2022-02-24       Impact factor: 11.043

10.  Genetic counseling in direct-to-consumer exome sequencing: a case report.

Authors:  Saskia van den Berg; Yaoqing Shen; Steven J M Jones; William T Gibson
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2014-06-24       Impact factor: 2.537

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.