Advertisement

Journal of Genetic Counseling

, Volume 21, Issue 3, pp 413–422 | Cite as

Risky Business: Risk Perception and the Use of Medical Services among Customers of DTC Personal Genetic Testing

  • David J. Kaufman
  • Juli M. Bollinger
  • Rachel L. Dvoskin
  • Joan A. Scott
Original Research

Abstract

Direct-to-consumer genetic testing has generated speculation about how customers will interpret results and how these interpretations will influence healthcare use and behavior; however, few empirical data on these topics exist. We conducted an online survey of DTC customers of 23andMe, deCODEme, and Navigenics to begin to address these questions. Random samples of U.S. DTC customers were invited to participate. Survey topics included demographics, perceptions of two sample DTC results, and health behaviors following DTC testing. Of 3,167 DTC customers invited, 33% (n = 1,048) completed the survey. Forty-three percent of respondents had sought additional information about a health condition tested; 28% had discussed their results with a healthcare professional; and 9% had followed up with additional lab tests. Sixteen percent of respondents had changed a medication or supplement regimen, and one-third said they were being more careful about their diet. Many of these health-related behaviors were significantly associated with responses to a question that asked how participants would perceive their colon cancer risk (as low, moderate, or high) if they received a test result showing an 11% lifetime risk, as compared to 5% risk in the general population. Respondents who would consider themselves to be at high risk for colon cancer were significantly more likely to have sought information about a disease (p = 0.03), discussed results with a physician (p = 0.05), changed their diet (p = 0.02), and started exercising more (p = 0.01). Participants’ personal health contexts—including personal and family history of disease and quality of self-perceived health—were also associated with health-related behaviors after testing. Subjective interpretations of genetic risk data and personal context appear to be related to health behaviors among DTC customers. Sharing DTC test results with healthcare professionals may add perceived utility to the tests.

Keywords

Direct-to-consumer Genetic testing Survey Risk perception Health behavior 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by the National Human Genome Research Institute (1R21HG004865-02). The authors would also like to thank Gail Javitt, JD, MPH, the staff at 23andMe, Navigenics, and deCODEme, and the study participants for their roles in this work.

Supplementary material

10897_2012_9483_MOESM1_ESM.ppt (574 kb)
ESM 1 (PPT 574 kb)

References

  1. 23andMe. 23andMe receives funding from the national institutes of health to evaluate web-based research on the genetics of drug response. in 23andMe. Available at https://www.23andme.com/about/press/20101216/.
  2. Bloss, C. S., Ornowski, L., Silver, E., Cargill, M., Vanier, V., Schork, N. J., et al. (2010). Consumer perceptions of direct-to-consumer personalized genomic risk assessments. Genetics in Medicine, 12(9), 556–566.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bloss, C. S., Darst, B. F., Topol, E. J., & Schork, N. J. (2011). Direct-to-consumer personalized genomic testing. Human Molecular Genetics. epub ahead of print.Google Scholar
  4. Caulfield, T. (2011). Direct-to-consumer testing: if consumers are not anxious, why are policymakers? Human Genetics, 130(1), 23–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Coriell Personalized Medicine Coalition. (2011). “Sample accounts”. Webpage http://cpmc.coriell.org/Demo/DemoPeople.aspx Last visited December 17, 2011.
  6. Croyle, R. T., & Lerman, C. (1999). Risk communication in genetic testing for cancer susceptibility. Journal of the National Cancer Institute Monographs, 25, 59–66.Google Scholar
  7. Deyo, R. A. (2002). Cascade effects of medical technology. Annual Review of Public Health, 23, 23–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Evans, J. P., & Green, R. C. (2009). Direct to consumer genetic testing: avoiding a culture war. Genetics in Medicine, 11(8), 568–569.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Foster, M. W., & Sharp, R. R. (2008). The contractual genome: how direct-to-consumer genomic services may help patients take ownership of their DNA. Personalized Medicine, 5, 399–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Frueh, F. W., Greely, H. T., Green, R. C., Hogarth, S., & Siegel, S. (2011). The future of direct-to-consumer clinical genetic tests. Nature Reviews Genetics, 12(7), 511–515.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Geransarel, R., & Einsiedel, E. (2008). Evaluating online direct-to-consumer marketing of genetic tests: informed choices or buyers beware? Genetic Testing, 12(1), 13–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Giovanni, M. A., Fickie, M. R., Lehmann, L. S., Green, R. C., Meckley, L. M., Veenstra, D., et al. (2010). Health-care referrals from direct-to-consumer genetic testing. Genetic Testing and Molecular Biomarkers, 14(6), 817–819.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gollust, S. E., Gordon, E. S., Zayac, C., Griffin, G., Christman, M. F., Pyeritz R. E., et al. (2011). Motivations and perceptions of early adopters of personalized genomics: perspectives from research participants. Public Health Genomics. epub ahead of print.Google Scholar
  14. GPPC (2011). DTC table. Genetics and public policy center. Available from http://www.dnapolicy.org/resources/DTCTableAug2011Alphabydisease.pdf.
  15. Groves, R. M. (2006). Non-response rates and non-response bias in household surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, 70(5), 646–675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Haga, S. B., Carrig, M. M., O’Daniel, J. M., Orlando, L. A., Killeya-Jones, L. A., Ginsburg, G. S., et al. (2011). Genomic risk profiling: attitudes and use in personal and clinical care of primary care physicians who offer risk profiling. Journal of General Internal Medicine., 26(8), 834–840.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Helgason, A., & Stefansson, K. (2010). The past, present, and future of direct-to-consumer genetics tests. Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience, 12(1), 61–68.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Hilgart, J., Phelps, C., Bennett, P., Hood, K., Brain, K., & Murray, A. (2010). “I have always believed I was at high risk…” The role of expectation in emotional responses to the receipt of an average, moderate or high cancer genetic risk assessment result: a thematic analysis of free-text questionnaire comments. Familial Cancer, 9(3), 469–477.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hogarth, S., Javitt, G., & Melzer, D. (2008). The current landscape for direct-to-consumer genetic testing: legal, ethical, and policy issues. Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics, 9(1), 161–182.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Imai, K., Kricka, L. J., & Fortina, P. (2011). Concordance study of 3 direct-to-consumer genetic-testing services. Clinical Chemistry, 57(3), 518–521.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Katapodi, M. C., Lee, K. A., Facione, N. C., & Dodd, M. J. (2004). Predictors of perceived breast cancer risk and the relation between perceived risk and breast cancer screening: a meta-analytic review. Preventive Medicine, 38(4), 388–402.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kuehn, B. M. (2010). Inconsistent results, inaccurate claims plague direct-to-consumer gene tests. JAMA—Journal of the American Medical Association, 304(12), 1313–1315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kutz, G. (2010). Direct-to-consumer genetic tests: misleading test results are further complicated by deceptive marketing and other questionable practices. Congressional Testimony. July 22, 2010. http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10847t.pdf.
  24. Lachance, C. R., Erby, L. A. H., Ford, B. M., Allen, V. C., & Kaphingst, K. A. (2010). Informational content, literacy demands, and usability of websites offering health-related genetic tests directly to consumers. Genetics in Medicine, 12(5), 304–312.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Leighton, J. W., Valverde, K., & Bernhardt, B. A. (2011). The general public’s understanding and perception of direct-to-consumer genetic test results. Public Health Genomics epub ahead of print.Google Scholar
  26. Marteau T. M., French, D. P., Griffin, S. J., Prevost, A. T., Sutton, S., Watkinson, C., et al. (2010). Effects of communicating DNA-based disease risk estimates on risk-reducing behaviours. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (10).Google Scholar
  27. McBride, C. M., Wade, C. H., & Kaphingst, K. A. (2010). Consumers’ views of direct-to-consumer genetic information. Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics, 11, 427–446.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. McGuire, A. L., & Burke, W. (2011). Health system implications of direct-to-consumer personal genome testing. Public Health Genomics., 14(1), 53–58.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. McGuire, A. L., Diaz, C. M., Wang, T., & Hilsenbeck, S. G. (2009). Social networkers’ attitudes toward direct-to-consumer personal genome testing. The American Journal of Bioethics: AJOB, 9(6–7), 3–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. McGuire, A. L., Evans, B. J., Caulfield, T., & Burke, W. (2010). Science and regulation. Regulating direct-to-consumer personal genome testing. Science, 330(6001), 181–182.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Meiser, B., & Halliday, J. L. (2002). What is the impact of genetic counselling in women at increased risk of developing hereditary breast cancer? A meta-analytic review. Social Science and Medicine, 54(10), 1463–1470.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mellon, S., Janisse, J., Gold, R., Cichon, M., Berry-Bobovski, L., Tainsky, M. A., et al. (2009). Predictors of decision making in families at risk for inherited breast/ovarian cancer. Health Psychology, 28(1), 38–47.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mikkelsen, E. M., Sunde, L., Johansen, C., & Johnsen, S. P. (2007). Risk perception among women receiving genetic counseling: a population based follow-up study. Cancer Detection and Prevention, 31(6), 457–464.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Murray, A., Vashlishan, B., Carson, M. J., Morris, C. A., & Beckwith, J. (2010). Illusions of scientific legitimacy: misrepresented science in the direct-to-consumer genetic-testing marketplace. Trends in Genetics, 26(11), 459–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ng, P. C., Murray, S. S., Levy, S., & Venter, J. C. (2009). An agenda for personalized medicine. Nature, 461(7265), 724–726.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sivell, S., Elwyn, G., Gaff, C. L., Clarke, A. J., Iredale, R., Shaw, C., et al. (2008). How risk is perceived, constructed and interpreted by clients in clinical genetics, and the effects on decision making: systematic review. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 17(1), 30–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Timmermans, D. R., Ockhuysen-Vermey, C. F., & Henneman, L. (2008). Presenting health risk information in different formats: the effect on participants’ cognitive and emotional evaluation and decisions. Patient Education and Counseling, 73(3), 443–447.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. van Dijk, S., Otten, W., Zoeteweij, M. W., Timmermans, D. R., van Asperen, C. J., Breuning, M. H., et al. (2003). Genetic counselling and the intention to undergo prophylactic mastectomy: effects of a breast cancer risk assessment. British Journal of Cancer, 88(11), 1675–1681.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. van Dijk, S., Timmermans, D. R., Meijers-Heijboer, H., Tibben, A., van Asperen, C. J., & Otten, W. (2006). Clinical characteristics affect the impact of an uninformative DNA test result: the course of worry and distress experienced by women who apply for genetic testing for breast cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 24(22), 3672–3677.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© National Society of Genetic Counselors, Inc. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • David J. Kaufman
    • 1
  • Juli M. Bollinger
    • 1
  • Rachel L. Dvoskin
    • 1
  • Joan A. Scott
    • 2
  1. 1.Genetics and Public Policy Center, Berman Institute of BioethicsJohns Hopkins UniversityWashingtonUSA
  2. 2.National Coalition for Health Professional Education in GeneticsLuthervilleUSA

Personalised recommendations