Suchetana De1, Anna-Maija Pietilä2, Terhi Iso-Touru3, Anu Hopia4, Raija Tahvonen5, Kirsi Vähäkangas6. 1. School of Pharmacy/Toxicology, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland. 2. Department of Nursing Science, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland. 3. Production Systems/Animal Genetics, Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Jokioinen, Finland. 4. Functional Foods Forum, Faculty of Medicine, University of Turku, Turku, Finland. 5. Production Systems/Food Processing and Quality, Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Jokioinen, Finland. 6. School of Pharmacy/Toxicology, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland, kirsi.vahakangas@uef.fi.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Nutrigenetic tests are often considered to be less serious compared to other health-related genetic tests, although they share similar ethical concerns. Nutrigenetic tests are mainly available through direct-to-consumer genetic testing (DTC GT) and increasing in popularity. OBJECTIVE: To analyze the contents of nutrigenetic DTC GT websites with respect to the adequacy of the information provided to support a well-informed decision of purchasing the tests. METHODS: The websites of DTC GT companies selling nutrigenetic tests that could be ordered online without involving any healthcare professional, available in English, marketing tests in Europe, the USA, Australia, or Canada, and accessible from Finland were included in the study (n = 38). Quantitative and qualitative content analyses of the websites were carried out with the help of a codebook. RESULTS: Of the 38 websites, 8 included a clearly identifiable and easy-to-find information section about genetics. The quality and contents of these sections were often insufficient and/or misleading. Fourteen websites had specific sections discussing the risks related to GT, and on 13 signed informed consent was requested for GT. Furthermore, only 2 of the companies offered any kind of pretest consultation and 13 offered mostly separately charged posttest consultation. The complex structure of the websites made it difficult to find all key information, with many important aspects buried in legal documents, which were challenging to comprehend even for a professional. CONCLUSION: The structure of the websites and the amount and quality of the content therein do not support a well-informed decision.
BACKGROUND: Nutrigenetic tests are often considered to be less serious compared to other health-related genetic tests, although they share similar ethical concerns. Nutrigenetic tests are mainly available through direct-to-consumer genetic testing (DTC GT) and increasing in popularity. OBJECTIVE: To analyze the contents of nutrigenetic DTC GT websites with respect to the adequacy of the information provided to support a well-informed decision of purchasing the tests. METHODS: The websites of DTC GT companies selling nutrigenetic tests that could be ordered online without involving any healthcare professional, available in English, marketing tests in Europe, the USA, Australia, or Canada, and accessible from Finland were included in the study (n = 38). Quantitative and qualitative content analyses of the websites were carried out with the help of a codebook. RESULTS: Of the 38 websites, 8 included a clearly identifiable and easy-to-find information section about genetics. The quality and contents of these sections were often insufficient and/or misleading. Fourteen websites had specific sections discussing the risks related to GT, and on 13 signed informed consent was requested for GT. Furthermore, only 2 of the companies offered any kind of pretest consultation and 13 offered mostly separately charged posttest consultation. The complex structure of the websites made it difficult to find all key information, with many important aspects buried in legal documents, which were challenging to comprehend even for a professional. CONCLUSION: The structure of the websites and the amount and quality of the content therein do not support a well-informed decision.
Authors: Jacus S Nacis; Marilou R Galang; Jason Paolo H Labrador; Milflor S Gonzales; Aurora Maria Francesca D Dablo; Diana Glades A Domalanta-Ronquillo; Victor Franco J Alfonso; Idelia G Glorioso; Marietta P Rodriguez Journal: J Community Genet Date: 2021-10-27
Authors: Alexandra King; Shaghayegh Saifi; Jenna Smith; Leta Pilic; Catherine A-M Graham; Viviane Da Silva Anastacio; Mark Glaister; Yiannis Mavrommatis Journal: Nutr Health Date: 2021-11-24
Authors: Sian Taylor-Phillips; Sarah Berhane; Alice J Sitch; Karoline Freeman; Malcolm James Price; Clare Davenport; Julia Geppert; Isobel M Harris; Osemeke Osokogu; Magdalena Skrybant; Jonathan J Deeks Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-11-06 Impact factor: 2.692