Literature DB >> 36195707

A qualitative study exploring the consumer experience of receiving self-initiated polygenic risk scores from a third-party website.

Kiara Lowes1, Kennedy Borle2, Lasse Folkersen3, Jehannine Austin4,5.   

Abstract

The number of people accessing their own polygenic risk scores (PRSs) online is rapidly increasing, yet little is known about why people are doing this, how they react to the information, and what they do with it. We conducted a qualitative interview-based study with people who pursued PRSs through Impute.me, to explore their motivations for seeking PRS information, their emotional reactions, and actions taken in response to their results. Using interpretive description, we developed a theoretical model describing the experience of receiving PRSs in a direct-to-consumer (DTC) context. Dissatisfaction with healthcare was an important motivator for seeking PRS information. Participants described having medical concerns dismissed and experiencing medical distrust, which drove them to self-advocate for their health, which ultimately led them to seek PRSs. Polygenic risk scores were often empowering for participants but could be distressing when PRS information did not align with participants' perceptions of their personal or family histories. Behavioural changes made in response to PRS results included dietary modifications, changes in vitamin supplementation and talk-based therapy. Our data provides the first qualitative insight into how people's lived experience influence their interactions with DTC PRSs.
© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to European Society of Human Genetics.

Entities:  

Year:  2022        PMID: 36195707     DOI: 10.1038/s41431-022-01203-w

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


  7 in total

Review 1.  The personal and clinical utility of polygenic risk scores.

Authors:  Ali Torkamani; Nathan E Wineinger; Eric J Topol
Journal:  Nat Rev Genet       Date:  2018-09       Impact factor: 53.242

2.  The Impact of Event Scale - Revised (IES-R).

Authors:  Steven Christianson; Joan Marren
Journal:  Medsurg Nurs       Date:  2012 Sep-Oct

3.  Distress, uncertainty, and positive experiences associated with receiving information on personal genomic risk of melanoma.

Authors:  Amelia K Smit; Ainsley J Newson; Megan Best; Caro-Anne Badcock; Phyllis N Butow; Judy Kirk; Kate Dunlop; Georgina Fenton; Anne E Cust
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2018-04-30       Impact factor: 4.246

4.  Women's responses and understanding of polygenic breast cancer risk information.

Authors:  T Yanes; R Kaur; B Meiser; M Scheepers-Joynt; S McInerny; K Barlow-Stewart; Y Antill; L Salmon; C Smyth; P A James; M A Young
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2020-10       Impact factor: 2.375

5.  Exploration of experiences with and understanding of polygenic risk scores for bipolar disorder.

Authors:  Sophie Putt; Tatiane Yanes; Bettina Meiser; Rajneesh Kaur; Janice M Fullerton; Kristine Barlow-Stewart; Peter R Schofield; Claudio Toma; Holly Peay; Philip B Mitchell
Journal:  J Affect Disord       Date:  2020-01-13       Impact factor: 4.839

6.  Breast cancer polygenic risk scores: a 12-month prospective study of patient reported outcomes and risk management behavior.

Authors:  Tatiane Yanes; Bettina Meiser; Rajneesh Kaur; Mary-Anne Young; Philip B Mitchell; Maatje Scheepers-Joynt; Simone McInerny; Shelby Taylor; Kristine Barlow-Stewart; Yoland Antill; Lucinda Salmon; Courtney Smyth; Brigid Betz-Stablein; Paul A James
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2021-08-02       Impact factor: 8.822

7.  Genome-wide polygenic scores for common diseases identify individuals with risk equivalent to monogenic mutations.

Authors:  Amit V Khera; Mark Chaffin; Krishna G Aragam; Mary E Haas; Carolina Roselli; Seung Hoan Choi; Pradeep Natarajan; Eric S Lander; Steven A Lubitz; Patrick T Ellinor; Sekar Kathiresan
Journal:  Nat Genet       Date:  2018-08-13       Impact factor: 38.330

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.