Literature DB >> 25600375

Public Awareness of Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Tests: Findings from the 2013 U.S. Health Information National Trends Survey.

Tanya Agurs-Collins1, Rebecca Ferrer2, Allison Ottenbacher3, Erika A Waters4, Mary E O'Connell2, Jada G Hamilton5.   

Abstract

Although the availability of direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing has increased in recent years, the general public's awareness of this testing is not well understood. This study examined levels of public awareness of DTC genetic testing, sources of information about testing, and psychosocial factors associated with awareness of testing in the USA. Data were obtained from the nationally representative 2013 U.S. Health Information National Trends Survey. Guided by a social-cognitive conceptual framework, univariable and multivariable logistic regressions were conducted to identify factors associated with awareness of DTC genetic tests. Of 3185 participants, 35.6% were aware of DTC genetic tests, with the majority learning about these tests through radio, television, and the Internet. In the final adjusted model, participants with annual incomes of $99,999 or less had lower odds of being aware of DTC genetic testing (ORs ranging from 0.46-0.61) than did those participants with incomes of $100,000 or more. The odds of awareness of DTC genetic tests were significantly higher for those who actively seek cancer information (OR=1.91, 95% CI=1.36-2.69), use the Internet (OR=1.81, 95% CI=1.05-3.13), and have high numeracy skills (OR=1.67, 95% CI=1.17-2.38). It will be critical for healthcare researchers and practitioners to understand predictors and consequences of the public's awareness of DTC genetic tests, as well as how such awareness may translate into DTC genetic testing uptake, health behavior change, and ultimately disease prevention.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Behavioral research; Direct-to-consumer genetic testing; HINTS; Psychosocial

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25600375      PMCID: PMC4508242          DOI: 10.1007/s13187-014-0784-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Cancer Educ        ISSN: 0885-8195            Impact factor:   2.037


  20 in total

1.  Racial and ethnic differences in direct-to-consumer genetic tests awareness in HINTS 2007: sociodemographic and numeracy correlates.

Authors:  Aisha T Langford; Ken Resnicow; J Scott Roberts; Brian J Zikmund-Fisher
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2012-01-21       Impact factor: 2.537

2.  Direct-to-consumer genetic testing: good, bad or benign?

Authors:  T Caulfield; N M Ries; P N Ray; C Shuman; B Wilson
Journal:  Clin Genet       Date:  2009-11-21       Impact factor: 4.438

Review 3.  The future of direct-to-consumer clinical genetic tests.

Authors:  Felix W Frueh; Henry T Greely; Robert C Green; Stuart Hogarth; Sue Siegel
Journal:  Nat Rev Genet       Date:  2011-06-01       Impact factor: 53.242

4.  Are smokers interested in genetic testing for smoking addiction? A socio-cognitive approach.

Authors:  Chris Smerecnik; Marieke Quaak; Constant P van Schayck; Frederik-Jan van Schooten; Hein de Vries
Journal:  Psychol Health       Date:  2011-06-28

5.  The general public's understanding and perception of direct-to-consumer genetic test results.

Authors:  J W Leighton; K Valverde; B A Bernhardt
Journal:  Public Health Genomics       Date:  2011-06-30       Impact factor: 2.000

6.  Information seeking and intentions to have genetic testing for hereditary cancers in rural and Appalachian Kentuckians.

Authors:  Kimberly M Kelly; James E Andrews; Donald O Case; Suzanne L Allard; J David Johnson
Journal:  J Rural Health       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 4.333

7.  Understanding of BRCA1/2 genetic tests results: the importance of objective and subjective numeracy.

Authors:  Yaniv Hanoch; Talya Miron-Shatz; Jonathan J Rolison; Elissa Ozanne
Journal:  Psychooncology       Date:  2014-04-14       Impact factor: 3.894

8.  Public awareness and use of direct-to-consumer personal genomic tests from four state population-based surveys, and implications for clinical and public health practice.

Authors:  Katherine Kolor; Debra Duquette; Amy Zlot; Joan Foland; Beth Anderson; Rebecca Giles; Jennifer Wrathall; Muin J Khoury
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2012-07-19       Impact factor: 8.822

9.  Predictive testing for BRCA1/2: attributes, risk perception and management in a multi-centre clinical cohort.

Authors:  C Foster; D G R Evans; R Eeles; D Eccles; S Ashley; L Brooks; R Davidson; J Mackay; P J Morrison; M Watson
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2002-04-22       Impact factor: 7.640

10.  Multifactorial beliefs about the role of genetics and behavior in common health conditions: prevalence and associations with participant characteristics and engagement in health behaviors.

Authors:  Erika A Waters; Jaclyn Muff; Jada G Hamilton
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2014-05-15       Impact factor: 8.822

View more
  26 in total

Review 1.  Population genetic testing for cancer susceptibility: founder mutations to genomes.

Authors:  William D Foulkes; Bartha Maria Knoppers; Clare Turnbull
Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol       Date:  2015-10-20       Impact factor: 66.675

2.  Assessing Genetic Literacy Awareness and Knowledge Gaps in the US Population: Results from the Health Information National Trends Survey.

Authors:  Melinda Krakow; Chelsea L Ratcliff; Bradford W Hesse; Alexandra J Greenberg-Worisek
Journal:  Public Health Genomics       Date:  2018-05-31       Impact factor: 2.000

3.  Psychosocial, attitudinal, and demographic correlates of cancer-related germline genetic testing in the 2017 Health Information National Trends Survey.

Authors:  Megan C Roberts; Erin Turbitt; William M P Klein
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2019-02-20

4.  Engagement with Genetic Information and Uptake of Genetic Testing: the Role of Trust and Personal Cancer History.

Authors:  Megan C Roberts; Jennifer M Taber; William M Klein
Journal:  J Cancer Educ       Date:  2018-08       Impact factor: 2.037

5.  Genes for Good: Engaging the Public in Genetics Research via Social Media.

Authors:  Katharine Brieger; Gregory J M Zajac; Anita Pandit; Johanna R Foerster; Kevin W Li; Aubrey C Annis; Ellen M Schmidt; Chris P Clark; Karly McMorrow; Wei Zhou; Jingjing Yang; Alan M Kwong; Andrew P Boughton; Jinxi Wu; Chris Scheller; Tanvi Parikh; Alejandro de la Vega; David M Brazel; Maia Frieser; Gianna Rea-Sandin; Lars G Fritsche; Scott I Vrieze; Gonçalo R Abecasis
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2019-06-13       Impact factor: 11.025

6.  Genetic testing and eHealth usage among Deaf women.

Authors:  Poorna Kushalnagar; Juliana Holcomb; Georgia R Sadler
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2019-06-10       Impact factor: 2.537

7.  Racial minority group interest in direct-to-consumer genetic testing: findings from the PGen study.

Authors:  Latrice Landry; Daiva Elena Nielsen; Deanna Alexis Carere; J Scott Roberts; Robert C Green
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2017-09-04

Review 8.  Communication of cancer-related genetic and genomic information: A landscape analysis of reviews.

Authors:  Emily B Peterson; Wen-Ying Sylvia Chou; Anna Gaysynsky; Melinda Krakow; Ashley Elrick; Muin J Khoury; Kimberly A Kaphingst
Journal:  Transl Behav Med       Date:  2018-01-29       Impact factor: 3.046

Review 9.  Mind the gap: resources required to receive, process and interpret research-returned whole genome data.

Authors:  Dana C Crawford; Jessica N Cooke Bailey; Farren B S Briggs
Journal:  Hum Genet       Date:  2019-06-03       Impact factor: 4.132

10.  How Are Information Seeking, Scanning, and Processing Related to Beliefs About the Roles of Genetics and Behavior in Cancer Causation?

Authors:  Erika A Waters; Courtney Wheeler; Jada G Hamilton
Journal:  J Health Commun       Date:  2016-09-23
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.