Literature DB >> 24553439

Public reaction to direct-to-consumer online genetic tests: Comparing attitudes, trust and intentions across commercial and conventional providers.

Christine Critchley1, Dianne Nicol2, Margaret Otlowski2, Don Chalmers2.   

Abstract

The success of personalised medicine depends upon the public's embracing genetic tests. Tests that claim to predict an individual's future health can now be accessed via online companies outside of conventional health regulations. This research assessed the extent to which the public embrace direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic tests relative to those obtained by a conventional medical practitioner (MP). It also examined the reasons for differences across providers using a randomised experimental telephone survey of 1000 Australians. Results suggest that people were significantly less likely to approve of, and order a DTC genetic test administered by a company compared to a MP because they were less trusting of companies' being able to protect their privacy and provide them with access to genetic expertise and counselling. Markets for DTC genetic tests provided by companies would therefore significantly increase if trust in privacy protection and access to expertise are enhanced through regulation.
© The Author(s) 2014.

Entities:  

Keywords:  direct to consumer; genetic tests; personalised medicine; public opinion; public trust

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24553439     DOI: 10.1177/0963662513519937

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Public Underst Sci        ISSN: 0963-6625


  14 in total

1.  Consumer Perspectives on Access to Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing: Role of Demographic Factors and the Testing Experience.

Authors:  Sarah E Gollust; Stacy W Gray; Deanna Alexis Carere; Barbara A Koenig; Lisa Soleymani Lehmann; Amy L McGUIRE; Richard R Sharp; Kayte Spector-Bagdady; N A Wang; Robert C Green; J Scott Roberts
Journal:  Milbank Q       Date:  2017-06       Impact factor: 4.911

2.  Direct to consumer genetic testing in Denmark-public knowledge, use, and attitudes.

Authors:  Anne-Marie Gerdes; Line Nicolaisen; Egil Husum; Janne Bayer Andersen; Martin Dræbye Gantzhorn; Laura Roos; Birgitte Rode Diness
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2021-03-01       Impact factor: 5.351

3.  'Mr Cummings clearly does not understand the science of genetics and should maybe go back to school on the subject': an exploratory content analysis of the online comments beneath a controversial news story.

Authors:  Madeline Crosswaite; Kathryn Asbury
Journal:  Life Sci Soc Policy       Date:  2016-11-03

4.  Regulation of Internet-based Genetic Testing: Challenges for Australia and Other Jurisdictions.

Authors:  Jane Tiller; Paul Lacaze
Journal:  Front Public Health       Date:  2018-02-15

5.  The PiGeOn project: protocol of a longitudinal study examining psychosocial and ethical issues and outcomes in germline genomic sequencing for cancer.

Authors:  Megan Best; Ainsley J Newson; Bettina Meiser; Ilona Juraskova; David Goldstein; Kathy Tucker; Mandy L Ballinger; Dominique Hess; Timothy E Schlub; Barbara Biesecker; Richard Vines; Kate Vines; David Thomas; Mary-Anne Young; Jacqueline Savard; Chris Jacobs; Phyllis Butow
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2018-04-23       Impact factor: 4.430

6.  Australians' views on personal genomic testing: focus group findings from the Genioz study.

Authors:  Sylvia A Metcalfe; Chriselle Hickerton; Jacqueline Savard; Bronwyn Terrill; Erin Turbitt; Clara Gaff; Kathleen Gray; Anna Middleton; Brenda Wilson; Ainsley J Newson
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2018-04-30       Impact factor: 4.246

7.  Implementation considerations for offering personal genomic risk information to the public: a qualitative study.

Authors:  Amelia K Smit; Gillian Reyes-Marcelino; Louise Keogh; Kate Dunlop; Ainsley J Newson; Anne E Cust
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2020-06-29       Impact factor: 3.295

8.  Attitudes towards personal genomics among older Swiss adults: An exploratory study.

Authors:  Laura Mählmann; Christina Röcke; Angela Brand; Ernst Hafen; Effy Vayena
Journal:  Appl Transl Genom       Date:  2016-02-01

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.  Australians' views and experience of personal genomic testing: survey findings from the Genioz study.

Authors:  Jacqueline Savard; Chriselle Hickerton; Rigan Tytherleigh; Bronwyn Terrill; Erin Turbitt; Ainsley J Newson; Brenda Wilson; Kathleen Gray; Clara Gaff; Anna Middleton; Elaine Stackpoole; Sylvia A Metcalfe
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2019-01-21       Impact factor: 4.246

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.