4.0 Article

Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing: User Motivations, Decision Making, and Perceived Utility of Results

Journal

PUBLIC HEALTH GENOMICS
Volume 20, Issue 1, Pages 36-45

Publisher

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000455006

Keywords

Direct-to-consumer genomic testing; Genetic testing; Health policy; Personal genomics; Test utility

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health [R01 HG005092]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background/Aims: To describe the interests, decision making, and responses of consumers of direct-to-consumer personal genomic testing (DTC-PGT) services. Methods: Prior to 2013 regulatory restrictions on DTC-PGT services, 1,648 consumers from 2 leading companies completed Web surveys before and after receiving test results. Results: Prior to testing, DTC-PGT consumers were as interested in ancestry (74% very interested) and trait information (72%) as they were in disease risks (72%). Among disease risks, heart disease (68% very interested), breast cancer (67%), and Alzheimer disease (66%) were of greatest interest prior to testing. Interest in disease risks was associated with female gender and poorer self-reported health (p < 0.01). Many consumers (38%) did not consider the possibility of unwanted information before purchasing services; this group was more likely to be older, male, and less educated (p < 0.05). After receiving results, 59% of respondents said test information would influence management of their health; 2% reported regret about seeking testing and 1% reported harm from results. Conclusion: DTC-PGT has attracted controversy because of the health related information it provides, but nonmedical information is of equal or greater interest to consumers. Although many consumers did not fully consider potential risks prior to testing, DTC-PGT was generally perceived as useful in informing future health decisions. (C) 2017 S. Karger AG, Basel

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available