Literature DB >> 31645768

Public reactions to direct-to-consumer genetic health tests: A comparison across the US, UK, Japan and Australia.

Jan Charbonneau1, Dianne Nicol2, Don Chalmers2, Kazuto Kato3, Natsuko Yamamoto3, Jarrod Walshe4, Christine Critchley2,4.   

Abstract

While direct to consumer health-related genetic testing (DTCGT) has potential to provide accessible genetic information and empower individuals to make informed healthcare decisions, it attracts concern associated with regulatory gaps, clinical utility and potential for harm. Understanding public reactions to DTCGT is vital to facilitate considered regulatory, health care and consumer protection strategies. Yet little is known, particularly outside the dominant US market, about how the general public view and might engage with DTCGT outside traditional health care systems. This paper addresses this knowledge gap with the first empirical study to investigate general public views across four countries, each at different stages of market development. US (n = 1000), UK (n = 1014), Japanese (n = 1018) and Australian (n = 1000) respondents completed an online experimental survey assessing comprehension, risk perceptions, and potential psychological and behavioural outcomes by type of test (disease pre-disposition and drug sensitivity), severity, lifestyle factors, and family history. Results showed generally low awareness and intention to purchase across countries, highest in the US and lowest in Japan. Results also showed clear preference for within-country purchases (less in Japan), with reports returned via doctors far more important in Japan. All respondents were more likely to act on test results, where there was higher genetic or lifestyle risk of developing a disease. Statistical comparisons of demographic and health-related variables across countries point to the need for further analyses designed to explain much needed cross-cultural, cross-health care system and developed versus developing market differences.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31645768      PMCID: PMC7029038          DOI: 10.1038/s41431-019-0529-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet        ISSN: 1018-4813            Impact factor:   5.351


  25 in total

1.  An exploration of genetic health professionals' experience with direct-to-consumer genetic testing in their clinical practice.

Authors:  Gemma R Brett; Sylvia A Metcalfe; David J Amor; Jane L Halliday
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2012-02-08       Impact factor: 4.246

2.  Legislation on direct-to-consumer genetic testing in seven European countries.

Authors:  Pascal Borry; Rachel E van Hellemondt; Dominique Sprumont; Camilla Fittipaldi Duarte Jales; Emmanuelle Rial-Sebbag; Tade Matthias Spranger; Liam Curren; Jane Kaye; Herman Nys; Heidi Howard
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2012-01-25       Impact factor: 4.246

3.  U.S. health care from a global perspective: spending, use of services, prices, and health in 13 countries.

Authors:  David Squires; Chloe Anderson
Journal:  Issue Brief (Commonw Fund)       Date:  2015-10

4.  Health-care referrals from direct-to-consumer genetic testing.

Authors:  Monica A Giovanni; Matthew R Fickie; Lisa S Lehmann; Robert C Green; Lisa M Meckley; David Veenstra; Michael F Murray
Journal:  Genet Test Mol Biomarkers       Date:  2010-10-28

Review 5.  The current landscape for direct-to-consumer genetic testing: legal, ethical, and policy issues.

Authors:  Stuart Hogarth; Gail Javitt; David Melzer
Journal:  Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 8.929

6.  Media coverage of direct-to-consumer genetic testing.

Authors:  John Lynch; Ashley Parrott; Robert J Hopkin; Melanie Myers
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2011-06-03       Impact factor: 2.537

7.  The effect of direct-to-consumer genetic tests on anticipated affect and health-seeking behaviors: a pilot survey.

Authors:  Nick Bansback; Sonia Sizto; Daphne Guh; Aslam H Anis
Journal:  Genet Test Mol Biomarkers       Date:  2012-08-29

Review 8.  The regulation of direct-to-consumer genetic tests.

Authors:  Jane Kaye
Journal:  Hum Mol Genet       Date:  2008-10-15       Impact factor: 6.150

9.  Evaluating the utility of personal genomic information.

Authors:  Morris W Foster; John J Mulvihill; Richard R Sharp
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 8.822

10.  Survey of European clinical geneticists on awareness, experiences and attitudes towards direct-to-consumer genetic testing.

Authors:  Heidi Carmen Howard; Pascal Borry
Journal:  Genome Med       Date:  2013-05-22       Impact factor: 11.117

View more
  2 in total

1.  Direct to consumer genetic testing in Denmark-public knowledge, use, and attitudes.

Authors:  Anne-Marie Gerdes; Line Nicolaisen; Egil Husum; Janne Bayer Andersen; Martin Dræbye Gantzhorn; Laura Roos; Birgitte Rode Diness
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2021-03-01       Impact factor: 5.351

2.  Genetic Testing Consumers in Italy: A Preliminary Investigation of the Socio-Demographic Profile, Health-Related Habits, and Decision Purposes.

Authors:  Serena Oliveri; Giulia Marton; Laura Vergani; Ilaria Cutica; Alessandra Gorini; Francesca Spinella; Gabriella Pravettoni
Journal:  Front Public Health       Date:  2020-10-08
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.