Literature DB >> 23832288

Primary care patients' views and decisions about, experience of and reactions to direct-to-consumer genetic testing: a longitudinal study.

Katherine Wasson1, Tonya Nashay Sanders, Nancy S Hogan, Sara Cherny, Kathy J Helzlsouer.   

Abstract

Little is known about the decisions and perspectives of participants undergoing direct-to-consumer genetic testing (DTCGT). The aims of this study were to examine the views, attitudes and decision-making factors of primary care patients regarding DTCGT. Their experience of and reactions to testing also emerged during the study. In this longitudinal, qualitative study, 20 primary care patients participated in DTCGT and individual interviews: (1) prior to testing after the informed consent session, (2) after receiving results, (3) 3 months post-test, and (4) 12 months post-test. Interviews included open-ended questions and all transcripts were analyzed using grounded theory, constant comparison methods. Five key themes emerged from data analysis as participants underwent DTCGT and reflected on their decision over time: (1) limited concerns about DTCGT, (2) motivations for testing, (3) expectations of testing, (4) understanding of results, and (5) impact of testing and results. While a few participants expressed concerns before testing, participants were motivated to test by curiosity, gaining actionable knowledge, and altruism. Most were uncertain of what to expect from DTCGT and needed assistance in understanding results. While many reported testing had no significant impact on them, being relieved or pleased after testing was the most common emotional effect. Notably, a few participants made positive health changes in response to testing. Given the paucity of information about primary care patients and DTCGT, this study adds more in-depth information to the emerging research on how such participants' view, make decisions about, experience and react to DTCGT over time. Because uncertainty remains about the accuracy of DTCGT, the response of primary care patients to this testing requires further investigation.

Entities:  

Year:  2013        PMID: 23832288      PMCID: PMC3773312          DOI: 10.1007/s12687-013-0156-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Community Genet        ISSN: 1868-310X


  34 in total

Review 1.  Genetic testing for disease susceptibility: social, ethical and legal issues for family physicians.

Authors:  M T White; F Callif-Daley; J Donnelly
Journal:  Am Fam Physician       Date:  1999-09-01       Impact factor: 3.292

2.  Association of direct-to-consumer genome-wide disease risk estimates and self-reported disease.

Authors:  Cinnamon S Bloss; Eric J Topol; Nicholas J Schork
Journal:  Genet Epidemiol       Date:  2011-11-29       Impact factor: 2.135

3.  Points to consider in assessing and appraising predictive genetic tests.

Authors:  Wolf H Rogowski; Scott D Grosse; Jürgen John; Helena Kääriäinen; Alastair Kent; Ulf Kristofferson; Jörg Schmidtke
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2010-10-16

4.  Considerations for the impact of personal genome information: a study of genomic profiling among genetics and genomics professionals.

Authors:  Julianne M O'Daniel; Susanne B Haga; Huntington F Willard
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2010-03-30       Impact factor: 2.537

5.  "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

6.  Making sure: registered nurses watching over their patients.

Authors:  Lee A Schmidt
Journal:  Nurs Res       Date:  2010 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 2.381

7.  Genetic risk estimation in the Coriell Personalized Medicine Collaborative.

Authors:  Catharine B Stack; Neda Gharani; Erynn S Gordon; Tara Schmidlen; Michael F Christman; Margaret A Keller
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 8.822

8.  A Community's Awareness and Perceptions of Genomic Medicine.

Authors:  S Hahn; S Letvak; K Powell; C Christianson; D Wallace; M Speer; P Lietz; S Blanton; J Vance; M Pericak-Vance; V C Henrich
Journal:  Public Health Genomics       Date:  2009-05-13       Impact factor: 2.000

9.  Patients' understanding of and responses to multiplex genetic susceptibility test results.

Authors:  Kimberly A Kaphingst; Colleen M McBride; Christopher Wade; Sharon Hensley Alford; Robert Reid; Eric Larson; Andreas D Baxevanis; Lawrence C Brody
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2012-07       Impact factor: 8.822

10.  ACMG statement on direct-to-consumer genetic testing.

Authors: 
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2004 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 8.822

View more
  15 in total

Review 1.  Personal utility in genomic testing: a systematic literature review.

Authors:  Jennefer N Kohler; Erin Turbitt; Barbara B Biesecker
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2017-03-15       Impact factor: 4.246

Review 2.  Points to Consider: Ethical, Legal, and Psychosocial Implications of Genetic Testing in Children and Adolescents.

Authors:  Jeffrey R Botkin; John W Belmont; Jonathan S Berg; Benjamin E Berkman; Yvonne Bombard; Ingrid A Holm; Howard P Levy; Kelly E Ormond; Howard M Saal; Nancy B Spinner; Benjamin S Wilfond; Joseph D McInerney
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2015-07-02       Impact factor: 11.025

3.  Public Attitudes Toward Direct to Consumer Genetic Testing.

Authors:  Grayson L Ruhl; James W Hazel; Ellen Wright Clayton; Bradley A Malin
Journal:  AMIA Annu Symp Proc       Date:  2020-03-04

Review 4.  Considerations for developing regulations for direct-to-consumer genetic testing: a scoping review using the 3-I framework.

Authors:  Alexandra Cernat; Naazish S Bashir; Wendy J Ungar
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2022-02-16

5.  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

6.  Perceptions of African-American health professionals and community members on the participation of children and pregnant women in genetic research.

Authors:  E M Ngui; T D Warner; L W Roberts
Journal:  Public Health Genomics       Date:  2013-11-06       Impact factor: 2.000

7.  Impact of delivery models on understanding genomic risk for type 2 diabetes.

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

8.  Comprehension and personal value of negative non-diagnostic genetic panel testing.

Authors:  Christin Hoell; Sharon Aufox; Nora Nashawaty; Melanie F Myers; Maureen E Smith
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2020-09-18       Impact factor: 2.537

9.  Public reactions to direct-to-consumer genetic health tests: A comparison across the US, UK, Japan and Australia.

Authors:  Jan Charbonneau; Dianne Nicol; Don Chalmers; Kazuto Kato; Natsuko Yamamoto; Jarrod Walshe; Christine Critchley
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2019-10-23       Impact factor: 5.351

10.  Effects of participation in a U.S. trial of newborn genomic sequencing on parents at risk for depression.

Authors:  Talia S Schwartz; Kurt D Christensen; Melissa K Uveges; Susan E Waisbren; Amy L McGuire; Stacey Pereira; Jill O Robinson; Alan H Beggs; Robert C Green; Gloria A Bachmann; Arnold B Rabson; Ingrid A Holm
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2021-07-26       Impact factor: 2.537

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.