4.4 Article

Social Networkers' Attitudes Toward Direct-to-Consumer Personal Genome Testing

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF BIOETHICS
卷 9, 期 6-7, 页码 3-10

出版社

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/15265160902928209

关键词

personal genome testing; patient expectations; genetics; ethics; policy

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [P30 CA125123-010013, P30 CA125123] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NHGRI NIH HHS [R01 HG004333-01, R01 HG004333] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE [P30CA125123] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  4. NATIONAL HUMAN GENOME RESEARCH INSTITUTE [R01HG004333] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: This study explores social networkers' interest in and attitudes toward personal genome testing (PGT), focusing on expectations related to the clinical integration of PGT results. Methods: An online survey of 1,087 social networking users was conducted to assess 1) use and interest in PGT; 2) attitudes toward PGT companies and test results; and 3) expectations for the clinical integration of PGT. Descriptive statistics were calculated to summarize respondents' characteristics and responses. Results: Six percent of respondents have used PGT, 64% would consider using PGT, and 30% would not use PGT. Of those who would consider using PGT, 74% report they would use it to gain knowledge about disease in their family. 34% of all respondents consider the information obtained from PGT to be a medical diagnosis. 78% of those who would consider PGT would ask their physician for help interpreting test results, and 61% of all respondents believe physicians have a professional obligation to help individuals interpret PGT results. Conclusion: Respondents express interest in using PGT services, primarily for purposes related to their medical care and expect physicians to help interpret PGT results. Physicians should therefore be prepared for patient demands for information and counsel on the basis of PGT results.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据