Literature DB >> 30359983

Factors Associated with Acceptability, Consideration and Intention of Uptake of Direct-To-Consumer Genetic Testing: A Survey Study.

Kelly F J Stewart1,2, Daša Kokole3,4, Anke Wesselius5, Annemie M W J Schols6, Maurice P Zeegers5,4, Hein de Vries3,4, Liesbeth A D M van Osch3,4.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: With interest in personalised health care growing, so is interest in personal genetic testing. This is now offered direct-to-consumer, thereby referred to as direct-to-consumer genetic testing (DTC-GT). Criticisms have been expressed on whether a truly informed decision to undergo testing is made with regard to these services. In order to provide relevant information to achieve this, knowing the characteristics of the expected user population is helpful. Therefore, the aim of this study is to identify characteristics of individuals who (1) find the concept of DTC-GT acceptable and (2) consider undergoing DTC-GT in the distant or near future.
METHODS: This cross-sectional study investigated factors associated with acceptability, consideration and intention in the Dutch general population. Studied variables included awareness, principles and how-to knowledge, attitude, innovativeness, and multiple demographic characteristics. Generalised linear models were applied to identify associated variables.
RESULTS: Full data was obtained for 836 respondents. Of those, 18.3% found DTC-GT somewhat or totally acceptable, whereas 12.6% considered and 5.5% intended to undergo DTC-GT in the distant or near future. Acceptability was greater with lower principles knowledge, and consideration and intention with lower how-to knowledge. A more positive attitude and greater innovativeness were associated with an increase in all 3 outcomes.
CONCLUSION: Informed decision making may be hampered as individuals with lower how-to knowledge were found to be more interested in pursuing testing. The identified characteristics can be used in development and distribution of public and personalized information, in order to help consumers make a truly informed decision.
© 2018 The Author(s) Published by S. Karger AG, Basel.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Acceptability; Attitude; Consideration; Cross-sectional study; Direct-to-consumer genetic testing; General public; Innovativeness; Intention; Knowledge; Survey study

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30359983      PMCID: PMC6425853          DOI: 10.1159/000492960

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


  26 in total

1.  The Genetic Knowledge Index: developing a standard measure of genetic knowledge.

Authors:  L A Furr; S E Kelly
Journal:  Genet Test       Date:  1999

2.  Public attitudes toward genetic testing: perceived benefits and objections.

Authors:  Lidewij Henneman; Danielle R M Timmermans; Gerrit Van Der Wal
Journal:  Genet Test       Date:  2006

3.  Development and evaluation of a genetics literacy assessment instrument for undergraduates.

Authors:  Bethany Vice Bowling; Erin E Acra; Lihshing Wang; Melanie F Myers; Gary E Dean; Glenn C Markle; Christine L Moskalik; Carl A Huether
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2008-01       Impact factor: 4.562

4.  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

5.  Are pregnant women making informed choices about prenatal screening?

Authors:  Matthijs van den Berg; Danielle R M Timmermans; Leo P Ten Kate; John M G van Vugt; Gerrit van der Wal
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2005 May-Jun       Impact factor: 8.822

6.  Early adoption of BRCA1/2 testing: who and why.

Authors:  Katrina Armstrong; Janet Weiner; Barbara Weber; David A Asch
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2003 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 8.822

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.  Informational content, literacy demands, and usability of websites offering health-related genetic tests directly to consumers.

Authors:  Christina R Lachance; Lori A H Erby; Beth M Ford; Vincent C Allen; Kimberly A Kaphingst
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2010-05       Impact factor: 8.822

9.  A survey of UK public interest in internet-based personal genome testing.

Authors:  Lynn F Cherkas; Juliette M Harris; Elana Levinson; Tim D Spector; Barbara Prainsack
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2010-10-19       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Preconceptional genetic carrier testing and the commercial offer directly-to-consumers.

Authors:  Pascal Borry; Lidewij Henneman; Phillis Lakeman; Leo P ten Kate; Martina C Cornel; Heidi C Howard
Journal:  Hum Reprod       Date:  2011-02-28       Impact factor: 6.918

View more
  2 in total

1.  Implementation considerations for offering personal genomic risk information to the public: a qualitative study.

Authors:  Amelia K Smit; Gillian Reyes-Marcelino; Louise Keogh; Kate Dunlop; Ainsley J Newson; Anne E Cust
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2020-06-29       Impact factor: 3.295

2.  May direct-to-consumer genetic testing have an impact on general practitioners' daily practice? a cross-sectional study of patients' intentions towards this approach.

Authors:  Daniela Cerqui; Daniel Widmer; Christine Cohidon; Regula Cardinaux; Jacques Cornuz; Robin Chenal; Béatrice Desvergne; Idris Guessous
Journal:  BMC Fam Pract       Date:  2021-04-26       Impact factor: 2.497

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.