Nate C Apathy1, Terri Menser2, Lindsay M Keeran3, Eric W Ford4, Christopher A Harle5, Timothy R Huerta6. 1. Department of Health Policy and Management, Richard M. Fairbanks School of Public Health, Indiana University, Indianapolis, Indiana. 2. Center for Outcomes Research, Houston Methodist Research Institute, Houston, Texas. 3. Department of Family Medicine, College of Medicine, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. 4. Department of Health Care Organization and Policy, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama. 5. Department of Health Policy and Management, Richard M. Fairbanks School of Public Health, Indiana University, Indianapolis, Indiana; Regenstrief Institute, Indianapolis, Indiana. 6. Department of Family Medicine, College of Medicine, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio; Department of Biomedical Informatics, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. Electronic address: timothy.huerta@osumc.edu.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Direct-to-consumer genetic tests for inherited disease risks have gained recent approvals from the Food and Drug Administration, and interest in these tests has continued to grow. Broad use of these tests coupled with planning and discussion with health providers regarding genetic risks and potential protective behavior changes have been proposed as preventive tools to reduce health disparities and improve equity in health outcomes. However, awareness of direct-to-consumer genetic testing has historically demonstrated differences by education, income, and race; these disparities could jeopardize potential benefits by limiting access and use. METHODS: The national survey data from the Health Information National Trends Survey was analyzed to understand how overall awareness of direct-to-consumer genetic testing and disparities in awareness across sociodemographic groups have changed since 2007. RESULTS: The findings showed persistent disparities, as well as a widening gap in awareness between Hispanics and non-Hispanic whites (OR2007 =1.52, OR2014 =0.58, pchange =0.0056), despite overall increases in awareness over time. CONCLUSIONS: Given these findings, policies regulating direct-to-consumer genetic tests should prioritize equitable distribution of benefits by including provisions that counteract prevailing disparities in awareness.
INTRODUCTION: Direct-to-consumer genetic tests for inherited disease risks have gained recent approvals from the Food and Drug Administration, and interest in these tests has continued to grow. Broad use of these tests coupled with planning and discussion with health providers regarding genetic risks and potential protective behavior changes have been proposed as preventive tools to reduce health disparities and improve equity in health outcomes. However, awareness of direct-to-consumer genetic testing has historically demonstrated differences by education, income, and race; these disparities could jeopardize potential benefits by limiting access and use. METHODS: The national survey data from the Health Information National Trends Survey was analyzed to understand how overall awareness of direct-to-consumer genetic testing and disparities in awareness across sociodemographic groups have changed since 2007. RESULTS: The findings showed persistent disparities, as well as a widening gap in awareness between Hispanics and non-Hispanic whites (OR2007 =1.52, OR2014 =0.58, pchange =0.0056), despite overall increases in awareness over time. CONCLUSIONS: Given these findings, policies regulating direct-to-consumer genetic tests should prioritize equitable distribution of benefits by including provisions that counteract prevailing disparities in awareness.
Authors: Kristen E Riley; Andrew L Sussman; Elizabeth Schofield; Dolores D Guest; Yvonne T Dailey; Matthew R Schwartz; David B Buller; Keith Hunley; Kimberly A Kaphingst; Marianne Berwick; Jennifer L Hay Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2021-08-28 Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Mary M Ryan; Chelsea G Cox; Megan Witbracht; Dan Hoang; Daniel L Gillen; Joshua D Grill Journal: Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord Date: 2021 Apr-Jun 01 Impact factor: 2.703
Authors: Jennifer L Hay; Kimberly A Kaphingst; David Buller; Elizabeth Schofield; Kirsten Meyer White; Andrew Sussman; Dolores Guest; Yvonne T Dailey; Erika Robers; Matthew R Schwartz; Yuelin Li; Keith Hunley; Marianne Berwick Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2021-08-12 Impact factor: 6.639
Authors: Megan C Roberts; Kimberly S Foss; Gail E Henderson; Sabrina N Powell; Katherine W Saylor; Karen E Weck; Laura V Milko Journal: Front Genet Date: 2022-07-22 Impact factor: 4.772