Daniela Cerqui1, Daniel Widmer2, Christine Cohidon3, Regula Cardinaux2, Jacques Cornuz2, Robin Chenal2, Béatrice Desvergne4, Idris Guessous5. 1. Institute of Social Sciences, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland. 2. Center for Primary Care and Public Health (Unisanté), University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland. 3. Center for Primary Care and Public Health (Unisanté), University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland. christine.cohidon@unisante.ch. 4. Centre for Integrative Genomics (CIG), University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland. 5. Division and Department of Primary Care Medicine, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Direct-to-consumer genetic testing (DTCGT) offers individuals access to information on their probable risks of suffering from a wide range of chronic diseases. General practitioners (GPs) will probably play a major role in supporting its use, but patients' perception of DTCGT remain unclear. This study aimed to describe those attitudes and expectations and how they might affect GPs' daily practices. METHODS: In 2018-2019, a study related to the use of DTCGT for preventive care in general medicine was conducted among patients in Switzerland's French-speaking areas. Data were collected in the waiting room using a self-administrated questionnaire about patients' interest in DTCGT and what their attitudes might be if testing revealed an elevated risk of diabetes, colorectal cancer, or Alzheimer's disease. RESULTS: About 40% of the 929 participating (participation rate about 80%) patients had heard about DTCGT and, once the test had been explained, 43% reported that they would be interested in being tested. If that testing suggested an elevated risk of disease, the majority of patients reported that they would change their lifestyle (65%-81%, depending on the disease), request more examinations (63%-77%), and expect changes in their GP's follow-up (48%-59%). Personal characteristics such as sex, age, urbanity, marital status, and perceived health were factors predictive of patients' attitudes. CONCLUSION: Findings indicated that the generalization of DTCGT might affect GPs' daily practices in terms of workload and knowledge about this approach. However, this result must be qualified by the fact that it is based on hypothetical situations.
BACKGROUND: Direct-to-consumer genetic testing (DTCGT) offers individuals access to information on their probable risks of suffering from a wide range of chronic diseases. General practitioners (GPs) will probably play a major role in supporting its use, but patients' perception of DTCGT remain unclear. This study aimed to describe those attitudes and expectations and how they might affect GPs' daily practices. METHODS: In 2018-2019, a study related to the use of DTCGT for preventive care in general medicine was conducted among patients in Switzerland's French-speaking areas. Data were collected in the waiting room using a self-administrated questionnaire about patients' interest in DTCGT and what their attitudes might be if testing revealed an elevated risk of diabetes, colorectal cancer, or Alzheimer's disease. RESULTS: About 40% of the 929 participating (participation rate about 80%) patients had heard about DTCGT and, once the test had been explained, 43% reported that they would be interested in being tested. If that testing suggested an elevated risk of disease, the majority of patients reported that they would change their lifestyle (65%-81%, depending on the disease), request more examinations (63%-77%), and expect changes in their GP's follow-up (48%-59%). Personal characteristics such as sex, age, urbanity, marital status, and perceived health were factors predictive of patients' attitudes. CONCLUSION: Findings indicated that the generalization of DTCGT might affect GPs' daily practices in terms of workload and knowledge about this approach. However, this result must be qualified by the fact that it is based on hypothetical situations.
Entities:
Keywords:
Attitudes; DTCGP; General medicine’ Patients
Authors: Karen P Powell; Whitney A Cogswell; Carol A Christianson; Gaurav Dave; Amit Verma; Sonja Eubanks; Vincent C Henrich Journal: J Genet Couns Date: 2011-07-16 Impact factor: 2.537
Authors: Daiva Elena Nielsen; Deanna Alexis Carere; Catharine Wang; J Scott Roberts; Robert C Green Journal: BMC Med Genomics Date: 2017-05-02 Impact factor: 3.063
Authors: Scott P McGrath; Nephi Walton; Marc S Williams; Katherine K Kim; Kiran Bastola Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2019-11-25 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Gareth J Hollands; David P French; Simon J Griffin; A Toby Prevost; Stephen Sutton; Sarah King; Theresa M Marteau Journal: BMJ Date: 2016-03-15
Authors: Sabrina N Powell; Grace Byfield; Ashley Bennetone; Annabelle M Frantz; Langston K Harrison; Erin R James-Crook; Heather Osborne; Thomas H Owens; Jonathan L Shaw; Julianne O'Daniel; Laura V Milko Journal: Front Genet Date: 2022-03-25 Impact factor: 4.772
Authors: Marie S Boyer; Daniel Widmer; Christine Cohidon; Béatrice Desvergne; Jacques Cornuz; Idris Guessous; Daniela Cerqui Journal: BMC Prim Care Date: 2022-03-01