Literature DB >> 23559530

Impact of direct-to-consumer genomic testing at long term follow-up.

Cinnamon S Bloss1, Nathan E Wineinger, Burcu F Darst, Nicholas J Schork, Eric J Topol.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: There are few empirical data to inform the debate surrounding the use and regulation of direct-to-consumer (DTC) genome-wide disease risk tests. This study aimed to determine the long term psychological, behavioural, and clinical impacts of genomic risk testing for common disease.
METHODS: The Scripps Genomic Health Initiative is a prospective longitudinal cohort study of adults who purchased the Navigenics Health Compass, a commercially available genomic test. Web based assessments were administered at baseline, short (3 months), and long term (1 year) follow-up.
RESULTS: 2240 participants completed either or both follow-ups and a subset of 1325 completed long term follow-up. There were no significant differences from baseline in anxiety (p=0.50), fat intake (p=0.34), or exercise (p=0.39) at long term follow-up, and 96.8% of the sample had no test related distress. Longitudinal linear mixed model analyses were consistent with results of cross-sectional analyses. Screening test completion was associated with sharing genomic test results with a physician (36.0% shared; p<0.001) and perceived utility of the test (61.5% high perceived utility; p=0.002), but was not associated with the genomic risk estimate values themselves.
CONCLUSIONS: Over a third of DTC genomic test recipients shared their results with their own physician during an approximate 1 year follow-up period, and this sharing was associated with higher screening test completion. Genomic testing was not associated with long term psychological risks, and most participants reportedly perceived the test to be of high personal utility.

Entities:  

Keywords:  consumer genomics; direct-to-consumer; genetic testing; genomic risk testing; personalized medicine

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23559530     DOI: 10.1136/jmedgenet-2012-101207

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Med Genet        ISSN: 0022-2593            Impact factor:   6.318


  60 in total

1.  Captious certainties: makings, meanings and misreadings of consumer-oriented genetic testing.

Authors:  Norbert W Paul; Mita Banerjee; Susanne Michl
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2013-11-08

Review 2.  Striking a balance in communicating pharmacogenetic test results: promoting comprehension and minimizing adverse psychological and behavioral response.

Authors:  Susanne B Haga; Rachel Mills; Hayden Bosworth
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2014-06-21

3.  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

4.  Counselees' Perspectives of Genomic Counseling Following Online Receipt of Multiple Actionable Complex Disease and Pharmacogenomic Results: a Qualitative Research Study.

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

5.  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

6.  Outcomes of a Randomized Controlled Trial of Genomic Counseling for Patients Receiving Personalized and Actionable Complex Disease Reports.

Authors:  Kevin Sweet; Amy C Sturm; Tara Schmidlen; Joseph McElroy; Laura Scheinfeldt; Kandamurugu Manickam; Erynn S Gordon; Shelly Hovick; J Scott Roberts; Amanda Ewart Toland; Michael Christman
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2017-03-27       Impact factor: 2.537

7.  Sequencing Newborns: A Call for Nuanced Use of Genomic Technologies.

Authors:  Josephine Johnston; John D Lantos; Aaron Goldenberg; Flavia Chen; Erik Parens; Barbara A Koenig
Journal:  Hastings Cent Rep       Date:  2018-07       Impact factor: 2.683

8.  Effects of genetic and environmental risk assessment feedback on colorectal cancer screening adherence.

Authors:  Ronald E Myers; Karen Ruth; Sharon L Manne; James Cocroft; Randa Sifri; Barry Ziring; Desiree Burgh; Eric Ross; David S Weinberg
Journal:  J Behav Med       Date:  2015-03-18

9.  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

10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.