Literature DB >> 28512697

Utilization of Genetic Counseling after Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing: Findings from the Impact of Personal Genomics (PGen) Study.

Diane R Koeller1,2, Wendy R Uhlmann3, Deanna Alexis Carere4, Robert C Green3, J Scott Roberts5,6.   

Abstract

Direct-to-consumer personal genomic testing (DTC-PGT) results lead some individuals to seek genetic counseling (GC), but little is known about these consumers and why they seek GC services. We analyzed survey data pre- and post-PGT from 1026 23andMe and Pathway Genomics customers. Participants were mostly white (91%), female (60%), and of high socioeconomic status (80% college educated, 43% household income of ≥$100,000). After receiving PGT results, 43 participants (4%) made or planned to schedule an appointment with a genetic counselor; 390 (38%) would have used in-person GC had it been available. Compared to non-seekers, GC seekers were younger (mean age of 38 vs 46 years), more frequently had children <18 (26% vs 16%), and were more likely to report previous GC (37% vs 7%) and genetic testing (30% vs 15%). In logistic regression analysis, seeking GC was associated with previous GC use (OR = 6.5, CI = 3.1-13.8), feeling motivated to pursue DTC-PGT for health reasons (OR = 4.3, CI = 1.8-10.1), fair or poor self-reported health (OR = 3.1, CI = 1.1-8.3), and self-reported uncertainty about the results (OR = 1.8, CI = 1.1-2.7). These findings can help GC providers anticipate who might seek GC services and plan for clinical discussions of DTC-PGT results.

Entities:  

Keywords:  DTC; Direct-to-consumer; Genetic counseling; Genetic counselors; Genetic testing; Health behavior; Personal genomic testing; Personalized medicine

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28512697      PMCID: PMC5673568          DOI: 10.1007/s10897-017-0106-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Genet Couns        ISSN: 1059-7700            Impact factor:   2.537


  33 in total

1.  Direct-to-consumer genetic testing for addiction susceptibility: a premature commercialisation of doubtful validity and value.

Authors:  Rebecca Mathews; Wayne Hall; Adrian Carter
Journal:  Addiction       Date:  2012-04-17       Impact factor: 6.526

2.  Risk perception and preference for prevention of Alzheimer's disease.

Authors:  Sukyung Chung; Kala Mehta; Martha Shumway; Jennifer Alvidrez; Eliseo J Perez-Stable
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2009-01-12       Impact factor: 5.725

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.  Consumer Perceptions of Interactions With Primary Care Providers After Direct-to-Consumer Personal Genomic Testing.

Authors:  Cathelijne H van der Wouden; Deanna Alexis Carere; Anke H Maitland-van der Zee; Mack T Ruffin; J Scott Roberts; Robert C Green
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2016-03-01       Impact factor: 25.391

6.  Educational needs of primary care physicians regarding direct-to-consumer genetic testing.

Authors:  Karen P Powell; Carol A Christianson; Whitney A Cogswell; Gaurav Dave; Amit Verma; Sonja Eubanks; Vincent C Henrich
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2011-12-30       Impact factor: 2.537

7.  Impact of direct-to-consumer predictive genomic testing on risk perception and worry among patients receiving routine care in a preventive health clinic.

Authors:  Katherine M James; Clayton T Cowl; Jon C Tilburt; Pamela S Sinicrope; Marguerite E Robinson; Katrin R Frimannsdottir; Kristina Tiedje; Barbara A Koenig
Journal:  Mayo Clin Proc       Date:  2011-10       Impact factor: 7.616

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

Authors:  Jenny E Ostergren; Michele C Gornick; Deanna Alexis Carere; Sarah S Kalia; Wendy R Uhlmann; Mack T Ruffin; Joanna L Mountain; Robert C Green; J Scott Roberts
Journal:  Public Health Genomics       Date:  2015-06-16       Impact factor: 2.000

9.  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

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
  14 in total

Review 1.  First Responder to Genomic Information: A Guide for Primary Care Providers.

Authors:  Susanne B Haga
Journal:  Mol Diagn Ther       Date:  2019-08       Impact factor: 4.074

2.  Third-Party Genetic Interpretation Tools: A Mixed-Methods Study of Consumer Motivation and Behavior.

Authors:  Sarah C Nelson; Deborah J Bowen; Stephanie M Fullerton
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2019-06-13       Impact factor: 11.025

3.  Sequencing Newborns: A Call for Nuanced Use of Genomic Technologies.

Authors:  Josephine Johnston; John D Lantos; Aaron Goldenberg; Flavia Chen; Erik Parens; Barbara A Koenig
Journal:  Hastings Cent Rep       Date:  2018-07       Impact factor: 2.683

Review 4.  Genetic testing for neurodegenerative diseases: Ethical and health communication challenges.

Authors:  J Scott Roberts; Anne K Patterson; Wendy R Uhlmann
Journal:  Neurobiol Dis       Date:  2020-04-14       Impact factor: 5.996

5.  The role of future-oriented affect in engagement with genomic testing results.

Authors:  Arielle S Gillman; Irina A Iles; William M P Klein; Barbara B Biesecker; Katie L Lewis; Leslie G Biesecker; Rebecca A Ferrer
Journal:  J Behav Med       Date:  2021-09-04

Review 6.  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

7.  Ethical concerns relating to genetic risk scores for suicide.

Authors:  Anna Docherty; Brent Kious; Teneille Brown; Leslie Francis; Louisa Stark; Brooks Keeshin; Jeffrey Botkin; Emily DiBlasi; Doug Gray; Hilary Coon
Journal:  Am J Med Genet B Neuropsychiatr Genet       Date:  2021-09-01       Impact factor: 3.568

8.  Direct-to-consumer genomic testing: Are nurses prepared?

Authors:  Elena Flowers; Heather Leutwyler; Janet K Shim
Journal:  Nursing       Date:  2020-08

9.  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

10.  Consumer use and response to online third-party raw DNA interpretation services.

Authors:  Catharine Wang; Tiernan J Cahill; Andrew Parlato; Blake Wertz; Qiankun Zhong; Tricia Norkunas Cunningham; James J Cummings
Journal:  Mol Genet Genomic Med       Date:  2017-11-02       Impact factor: 2.183

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.