Literature DB >> 26087778

How Well Do Customers of Direct-to-Consumer Personal Genomic Testing Services Comprehend Genetic Test Results? Findings from the Impact of Personal Genomics Study.

Jenny E Ostergren1, Michele C Gornick, Deanna Alexis Carere, Sarah S Kalia, Wendy R Uhlmann, Mack T Ruffin, Joanna L Mountain, Robert C Green, J Scott Roberts.   

Abstract

AIM: To assess customer comprehension of health-related personal genomic testing (PGT) results.
METHODS: We presented sample reports of genetic results and examined responses to comprehension questions in 1,030 PGT customers (mean age: 46.7 years; 59.9% female; 79.0% college graduates; 14.9% non-White; 4.7% of Hispanic/Latino ethnicity). Sample reports presented a genetic risk for Alzheimer's disease and type 2 diabetes, carrier screening summary results for >30 conditions, results for phenylketonuria and cystic fibrosis, and drug response results for a statin drug. Logistic regression was used to identify correlates of participant comprehension.
RESULTS: Participants exhibited high overall comprehension (mean score: 79.1% correct). The highest comprehension (range: 81.1-97.4% correct) was observed in the statin drug response and carrier screening summary results, and lower comprehension (range: 63.6-74.8% correct) on specific carrier screening results. Higher levels of numeracy, genetic knowledge, and education were significantly associated with greater comprehension. Older age (≥ 60 years) was associated with lower comprehension scores.
CONCLUSIONS: Most customers accurately interpreted the health implications of PGT results; however, comprehension varied by demographic characteristics, numeracy and genetic knowledge, and types and format of the genetic information presented. Results suggest a need to tailor the presentation of PGT results by test type and customer characteristics.
© 2015 S. Karger AG, Basel.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26087778      PMCID: PMC4926310          DOI: 10.1159/000431250

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Public Health Genomics        ISSN: 1662-4246            Impact factor:   2.000


  27 in total

1.  Understanding of genetics among older adults.

Authors:  Lorraine Frazier; Amy O Calvin; Gia T Mudd; Marlene Z Cohen
Journal:  J Nurs Scholarsh       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 3.176

Review 2.  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

3.  Applying a theory-based framework to understand public knowledge of genetic risk factors: a case for the distinction between how-to knowledge and principles knowledge.

Authors:  C M R Smerecnik; I Mesters; N K de Vries; H de Vries
Journal:  Public Health Genomics       Date:  2010-03-12       Impact factor: 2.000

4.  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

5.  Knowledge about genetic risk for breast cancer and perceptions of genetic testing in a sociodemographically diverse sample.

Authors:  K A Donovan; D C Tucker
Journal:  J Behav Med       Date:  2000-02

6.  Assessing perceptions of cancer risk: does mode of assessment or numeracy matter?

Authors:  Kimberly M Kelly; Kristi D Graves; Felicity W K Harper; John E Schmidt; Stephanie L Dickinson; Michael A Andrykowski
Journal:  Cancer Detect Prev       Date:  2007

7.  Australian study on public knowledge of human genetics and health.

Authors:  C Molster; T Charles; A Samanek; P O'Leary
Journal:  Public Health Genomics       Date:  2008-10-15       Impact factor: 2.000

8.  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

9.  Direct to consumer genetic testing: Avoiding a culture war.

Authors:  James P Evans; Robert C Green
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 8.822

10.  Navigating a research partnership between academia and industry to assess the impact of personalized genetic testing.

Authors:  Lisa Soleymani Lehmann; David J Kaufman; Richard R Sharp; Tanya A Moreno; Joanna L Mountain; J Scott Roberts; Robert C Green
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2012-01-12       Impact factor: 8.822

View more
  28 in total

1.  Current directions in behavioral medicine research on genetic testing for disease susceptibility: introduction to the special section.

Authors:  Kerry A Sherman; Linda D Cameron
Journal:  J Behav Med       Date:  2015-10

2.  Clinical implications of APOE genotyping for late-onset Alzheimer's disease (LOAD) risk estimation: a review of the literature.

Authors:  Victoria S Marshe; Ilona Gorbovskaya; Sarah Kanji; Maxine Kish; Daniel J Müller
Journal:  J Neural Transm (Vienna)       Date:  2018-10-31       Impact factor: 3.575

3.  The impact of personal genomics on risk perceptions and medical decision-making.

Authors:  Joshua L Krieger; Fiona Murray; J Scott Roberts; Robert C Green
Journal:  Nat Biotechnol       Date:  2016-09-08       Impact factor: 54.908

4.  Using the diffusion of innovations model to guide participant engagement in the genomics era.

Authors:  Katie L Lewis; Flavia M Facio; Courtney D Berrios
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2019-01-17       Impact factor: 2.537

5.  Patient characteristics, experiences and perceived value of pharmacogenetic testing from a single testing laboratory.

Authors:  Susanne B Haga; Yiling Liu
Journal:  Pharmacogenomics       Date:  2019-06       Impact factor: 2.533

6.  Consumer (dis-)interest in Genetic Ancestry Testing: The roles of race, immigration, and ancestral certainty.

Authors:  Adam L Horowitz; Aliya Saperstein; Jasmine Little; Martin Maiers; Jill A Hollenbach
Journal:  New Genet Soc       Date:  2019-01-20

7.  Personal Genomic Testing for Cancer Risk: Results From the Impact of Personal Genomics Study.

Authors:  Stacy W Gray; Sarah E Gollust; Deanna Alexis Carere; Clara A Chen; Angel Cronin; Sarah S Kalia; Huma Q Rana; Mack T Ruffin; Catharine Wang; J Scott Roberts; Robert C Green
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2016-12-12       Impact factor: 44.544

8.  Genetic Sample Provision Among National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center Participants.

Authors:  Shoshana H Bardach; Gregory A Jicha; Shama Karanth; Xuan Zhang; Erin L Abner
Journal:  J Alzheimers Dis       Date:  2019       Impact factor: 4.472

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.  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.