BACKGROUND: Genetic information, typically communicated in-person by genetic counselors, can be challenging to comprehend; delivery of this information online--as is becoming more common--has the potential of increasing these challenges. METHODS: To address the impact of the mode of delivery of genomic risk information, 300 individuals were recruited from the general public and randomized to receivegenomic risk information for type 2 diabetes mellitus in-person from a board-certified genetic counselor or online through the testing company's website. RESULTS: Participants were asked to indicate their genomic risk and overall lifetime risk as reported on their test report as well as to interpret their genomic risk (increased, decreased, or same as population). For each question, 59% of participants correctly indicated their risk. Participants who received their results in-person were more likely than those who reviewed their results on-line to correctly interpret their genomic risk (72 vs. 47%, p = 0.0002) and report their actual genomic risk (69 vs. 49%, p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: The delivery of personal genomic risk through a trained health professional resulted in significantly higher comprehension. Therefore, if the online delivery of genomic test results is to become more widespread, further evaluation of this method of communication may be needed to ensure the effective presentation of results to promote comprehension.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Genetic information, typically communicated in-person by genetic counselors, can be challenging to comprehend; delivery of this information online--as is becoming more common--has the potential of increasing these challenges. METHODS: To address the impact of the mode of delivery of genomic risk information, 300 individuals were recruited from the general public and randomized to receive genomic risk information for type 2 diabetes mellitus in-person from a board-certified genetic counselor or online through the testing company's website. RESULTS:Participants were asked to indicate their genomic risk and overall lifetime risk as reported on their test report as well as to interpret their genomic risk (increased, decreased, or same as population). For each question, 59% of participants correctly indicated their risk. Participants who received their results in-person were more likely than those who reviewed their results on-line to correctly interpret their genomic risk (72 vs. 47%, p = 0.0002) and report their actual genomic risk (69 vs. 49%, p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: The delivery of personal genomic risk through a trained health professional resulted in significantly higher comprehension. Therefore, if the online delivery of genomic test results is to become more widespread, further evaluation of this method of communication may be needed to ensure the effective presentation of results to promote comprehension.
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
Authors: Sato Ashida; Laura M Koehly; J Scott Roberts; Clara A Chen; Susan Hiraki; Robert C Green Journal: Eur J Hum Genet Date: 2010-07-28 Impact factor: 4.246
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
Authors: Paula M Saukko; Sian Ellard; Suzanne H Richards; Maggie H Shepherd; John L Campbell Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2007-06-12 Impact factor: 2.655
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
Authors: Barbara B Biesecker; Katie L Lewis; Kendall L Umstead; Jennifer J Johnston; Erin Turbitt; Kristen P Fishler; John H Patton; Ilana M Miller; Alexis R Heidlebaugh; Leslie G Biesecker Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2018-03-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Barbara A Athens; Samantha L Caldwell; Kendall L Umstead; Philip D Connors; Ethan Brenna; Barbara B Biesecker Journal: J Genet Couns Date: 2017-03-02 Impact factor: 2.537
Authors: Emily C Shen; Swetha Srinivasan; Lauren E Passero; Caitlin G Allen; Madison Dixon; Kimberly Foss; Brianna Halliburton; Laura V Milko; Amelia K Smit; Rebecca Carlson; Megan C Roberts Journal: Front Genet Date: 2022-07-04 Impact factor: 4.772