Literature DB >> 31204012

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

Sarah C Nelson1, Deborah J Bowen2, Stephanie M Fullerton2.   

Abstract

In an effort to meet ethical obligations and/or participant expectations, researchers may consider offering "raw" or uninterpreted genetic data for result return. It is therefore important to understand the motivations, behaviors, and perspectives of individuals who might choose to access raw data before such return becomes routine. In the direct-to-consumer (DTC) context, where raw data are often made available to customers, the use of third-party interpretation tools has raised concerns about genotype accuracy, data privacy, reliability of interpretation, and consumption of limited health care resources. However, relatively little is known about why individuals access raw data or what they do with the information received from third-party interpretation. Accordingly, we conducted a survey on raw data access and third-party tool usage among 1,137 DTC customers recruited through social media. Most survey respondents (89%) reported downloading their raw data. Among downloaders, 94% used at least one tool, most commonly Promethease (63%) or GEDmatch (84%). More than half (56%) used both health-related and non-health-related tools and differed significantly from those who used only one tool type in terms of demographics, participation in research, DTC tests ordered, and testing motivations. Exploratory interviews were conducted with 10 respondents and illustrated how social networking, initial lack of interesting findings, and general curiosity contributed to use of multiple tool types. These results suggest that even when initially motivated by ancestry and genealogy, consumers frequently also pursue health information in a largely unregulated and expanding suite of third-party tools, raising both challenges and opportunities for the professional genetics community.
Copyright © 2019 American Society of Human Genetics. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  direct-to-consumer genomic testing; personal genomic testing; survey; third-party interpretation

Year:  2019        PMID: 31204012      PMCID: PMC6612532          DOI: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2019.05.014

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Hum Genet        ISSN: 0002-9297            Impact factor:   11.025


  30 in total

Review 1.  Disclosure of individual genetic data to research participants: the debate reconsidered.

Authors:  Annelien L Bredenoord; Hester Y Kroes; Edwin Cuppen; Michael Parker; Johannes J M van Delden
Journal:  Trends Genet       Date:  2010-12-27       Impact factor: 11.639

2.  Research electronic data capture (REDCap)--a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support.

Authors:  Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde
Journal:  J Biomed Inform       Date:  2008-09-30       Impact factor: 6.317

3.  Offering individual genetic research results: context matters.

Authors:  Laura M Beskow; Wylie Burke
Journal:  Sci Transl Med       Date:  2010-06-30       Impact factor: 17.956

4.  Information access. Raw personal data: providing access.

Authors:  Jeantine E Lunshof; George M Church; Barbara Prainsack
Journal:  Science       Date:  2014-01-24       Impact factor: 47.728

5.  CLIA program and HIPAA privacy rule; patients' access to test reports. Final rule.

Authors: 
Journal:  Fed Regist       Date:  2014-02-06

6.  An unwelcome side effect of direct-to-consumer personal genome testing: raiding the medical commons.

Authors:  Amy L McGuire; Wylie Burke
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2008-12-10       Impact factor: 56.272

7.  Crowdsourced health research studies: an important emerging complement to clinical trials in the public health research ecosystem.

Authors:  Melanie Swan
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2012-03-07       Impact factor: 5.428

8.  Harvard Personal Genome Project: lessons from participatory public research.

Authors:  Madeleine P Ball; Jason R Bobe; Michael F Chou; Tom Clegg; Preston W Estep; Jeantine E Lunshof; Ward Vandewege; Alexander Zaranek; George M Church
Journal:  Genome Med       Date:  2014-02-28       Impact factor: 11.117

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.  openSNP--a crowdsourced web resource for personal genomics.

Authors:  Bastian Greshake; Philipp E Bayer; Helge Rausch; Julia Reda
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-03-19       Impact factor: 3.240

View more
  10 in total

1.  Family secrets: Experiences and outcomes of participating in direct-to-consumer genetic relative-finder services.

Authors:  Christi J Guerrini; Jill O Robinson; Cinnamon C Bloss; Whitney Bash Brooks; Stephanie M Fullerton; Brianne Kirkpatrick; Sandra Soo-Jin Lee; Mary Majumder; Stacey Pereira; Olivia Schuman; Amy L McGuire
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2022-02-24       Impact factor: 11.043

2.  Complicated legacies: The human genome at 20.

Authors:  Kathryn Maxson Jones; Robert Cook-Deegan; Charles N Rotimi; Shawneequa L Callier; Amy R Bentley; Hallam Stevens; Kathryn A Phillips; Jeroen P Jansen; Christopher F Weyant; Dorothy E Roberts; Dina Zielinski; Yaniv Erlich; Nanibaa' A Garrison; Stephanie Russo Carroll; Pilar N Ossorio; Yves Moreau; Maya Wang
Journal:  Science       Date:  2021-02-04       Impact factor: 63.714

3.  PAGEANT: personal access to genome and analysis of natural traits.

Authors:  Jie Huang; Zhi-Sheng Liang; Stefano Pallotti; Janice M Ranson; David J Llewellyn; Zhi-Jie Zheng; Daniel A King; Qiang Zhou; Houfeng Zheng; Valerio Napolioni
Journal:  Nucleic Acids Res       Date:  2022-04-22       Impact factor: 16.971

Review 4.  Polygenic risk scores: from research tools to clinical instruments.

Authors:  Cathryn M Lewis; Evangelos Vassos
Journal:  Genome Med       Date:  2020-05-18       Impact factor: 11.117

5.  Use of SNP chips to detect rare pathogenic variants: retrospective, population based diagnostic evaluation.

Authors:  Weedon Mn; Jackson L; Harrison Jw; Ruth Ks; Tyrrell J; Hattersley At; Wright Cf
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2021-02-15

6.  Genomic health data generation in the UK: a 360 view.

Authors:  Elizabeth Ormondroyd; Peter Border; Judith Hayward; Andrew Papanikitas
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2021-10-19       Impact factor: 5.351

7.  Returning raw genomic data: rights of research participants and obligations of health care professionals.

Authors:  Jane L Nielsen; Carolyn Johnston; Tracey O'Brien; Vanessa J Tyrrell
Journal:  Med J Aust       Date:  2022-05-29       Impact factor: 12.776

8.  Environmental scan of family chart linking for genetic cascade screening in a U.S. integrated health system.

Authors:  Cameron B Haas; James Ralston; Stephanie M Fullerton; Aaron Scrol; Nora B Henrikson
Journal:  Front Genet       Date:  2022-08-11       Impact factor: 4.772

9.  From Expectations to Experiences: Consumer Autonomy and Choice in Personal Genomic Testing.

Authors:  Jacqueline Savard; Chriselle Hickerton; Sylvia A Metcalfe; Clara Gaff; Anna Middleton; Ainsley J Newson
Journal:  AJOB Empir Bioeth       Date:  2019-12-30

10.  False Alarms in Consumer Genomics Add to Public Fear and Potential Health Care Burden.

Authors:  Xiaoming Liu; Deborah Cragun; Jinyong Pang; Swamy R Adapa; Renee Fonseca; Rays H Y Jiang
Journal:  J Pers Med       Date:  2020-10-23
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.