Journal of Community Genetics

, 2:135 | Cite as

Users’ motivations to purchase direct-to-consumer genome-wide testing: an exploratory study of personal stories

Original Article

Abstract

The relatively rapid growth of the direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing market in the last few years has led to increasing attention from both the scientific community and policy makers. One voice often missing in these debates, however, is that of the actual user of these genetic testing services. In order to gain a better picture of the motivations and expectations that propel individuals to purchase DTC genome-wide testing, we conducted an exploratory study based on users’ personal stories. Through qualitative content analysis of users’ personal stories found on Internet blogs and DTC genetic testing companies’ websites, we identified five major sets of motivations and expectations towards DTC genome-wide testing. These themes are related to (1) health, (2) curiosity and fascination, (3) genealogy, (4) contributing to research, and (5) recreation. Obtaining such information can help us to understand how users consider genome-wide testing and forms the basis for further research.

Notes

Acknowledgments

YS was funded by an Erasmus Mundus Masters studentship, PB is funded by the Research Fund Flanders (FWO), and HCH is funded by the European Commission FP7 Marie Curie initiative. The authors thank the editor and two anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful and helpful comments.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 23andMe (2010) Terms of service. https://www.23andme.com/about/tos/ Accessed 11 Nov 2010
  2. Allison M (2010) Genetic testing clamp down. Nat Biotechnol 28:633PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. American College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (2008) ACOG Committee Opinion no. 409: direct-to-consumer marketing of genetic testing. Obstet Gynecol 111:1493–1494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bloss CS, Ornowski L, Silver E, Cargill M, Vanier V, Schork NJ, Topol EJ (2010) Consumer perceptions of direct-to-consumer personalized genomic risk assessments. Genet Med 12:556–566PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bloss CS, Schork NJ, Topol EJ (2011) Effect of direct-to-consumer genomewide profiling to assess disease risk. New Engl J Med 364 (6): 524–534PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Borry P, Howard HC, Senecal K, Avard D (2009a) Direct-to-consumer genome scanning services. Also for children? Nat Rev Genet 10:8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Borry P, Howard HC, Senecal K, Avard D (2009b) Health-related direct-to-consumer genetic testing: a review of companies' policies with regard to genetic testing in minors. Fam Cancer 9:51–59PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Borry P, Cornel MC, Howard HC (2010a) Where are you going, where have you been. Direct-to-consumer genetic tests for health purposes. J Community Genet 1:101–106PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Borry P, Henneman L, Lakeman P, ten Kate LP, Cornel MC, Howard HC (2010b) Preconceptional carrier genetic testing and the commercial offer directly-to-consumers. Hum Reprod 26:972–977CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cherkas LF, Harris JM, Levinson E, Spector TD, Prainsack B (2010) A survey of UK public interest in internet-based personal genome testing. PLoS ONE 5:e13473PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Collins F (2010) The language of life: DNA and the revolution in personalized medicine. Harper Collins, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. Burril & Company/Change Wave Research (2008) Personalized medicine and wellness survey. Executive summary. http://www.burrillandco.com/content/CWSurvey_61708.pdf. Accessed 21 Sept 2010
  13. deCODE (2010) deCODEme Genetic scan service agreement and informed consent. http://www.decodeme.com/service-agreement Accessed 11 Nov 2010
  14. Duncan D (2009) The experimental man. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  15. European Society of Human Genetics (2010) Statement of the ESHG on direct-to-consumer genetic testing for health-related purposes. Eur J Hum Genet 18:1271–1273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Federal Trade Commission (2009) FTC facts for consumers. At-home genetic tests: a healthy dose of skepticism may be the best prescription. http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/health/hea02.shtm. Accessed 26 Apr 2011
  17. Foster MW, Royal CDM, Sharp RR (2006) The routinisation of genomics and genetics: implications for ethical practices. J Med Ethics 32:635–638PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Foster MW, Mulvihill JJ, Sharp RR (2009) Evaluating the utility of personal genomic information. Genet Med 11:570–574PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gulcher J, Stefansson K (2010) Genetic risk information for common diseases may indeed be already useful for prevention and early detection. Eur J Clin Investig 40:56–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hogarth S, Javitt G, Melzer D (2008) The current landscape for direct-to-consumer genetic testing: legal, ethical, and policy issues. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet 9:161–182PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Howard HC, Borry P (2009) Personal genome testing: do you know what you are buying? Am J Bioeth 9:11–13PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Howard HC, Knoppers BM, Borry P (2010) Blurring lines. The research activities of direct-to-consumer genetic testing companies raise questions about consumers as research subjects. EMBO Rep 11:579–582PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Human Genetics Commission (2010) A common framework of principles for direct-to-consumer genetic testing services. http://www.hgc.gov.uk/Client/document.asp?DocId=280&CAtegoryId=10 Accessed 17 Feb 2011
  24. Hunter DJ, Khoury MJ, Drazen JM (2008) Letting the genome out of the bottle—will we get our wish? N Engl J Med 358:105–107PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Janssens AC, Gwinn M, Bradley LA, Oostra BA, van Duijn CM, Khoury MJ (2008) A critical appraisal of the scientific basis of commercial genomic profiles used to assess health risks and personalize health interventions. Am J Hum Genet 82:593–599PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kaufman D, Murphy Bollinger J, Devaney S, Scott J (2010) Direct from consumers: a survey of 1,048 customers of three direct-to-consumer personal genomic testing companies about motivations, attitudes, and responses to testing.http://www.ashg.org/cgi-bin/2010/showdetail.pl?absno=21043 Accessed 26 Apr 2011
  27. Kettis-Lindblad A, Ring L, Viberth E, Hansson MG (2007) Perceptions of potential donors in the Swedish public towards information and consent procedures in relation to use of human tissue samples in biobanks: a population-based study. Scand J Public Health 35:148–156PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Khoury MJ (2003) Genetics and genomics in practice: the continuum from genetic disease to genetic information in health and disease. Genet Med 5:261–268PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lachance CR, Erby LA, Ford BM, Allen VC Jr, Kaphingst KA (2010) Informational content, literacy demands, and usability of websites offering health-related genetic tests directly to consumers. Genet Med 12:304–312PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. McBride CM, Alford SH, Reid RJ, Larson EB, Baxevanis AD, Brody LC (2009) Characteristics of users of online personalized genomic risk assessments: implications for physician–patient interactions. Genet Med 11:582–587PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. McBride CM, Wade CH, Kaphingst KA (2010) Consumers' views of direct-to-consumer genetic information. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet 11:427–446PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. McGowan ML, Fishman JR, Lambrix MA (2010) Personal genomics and individual identities: motivations and moral imperatives of early users. New Genet Soc 29:261–290PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. McGuire A, Diaz CM, Wang T, Hilsenbeck S (2009) Social networkers' attitudes toward direct-to-consumer personal genome testing. Am J Bioeth 9:3–10PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Mezuk B, Eaton WW, Zandi P (2008) Participant characteristics that influence consent for genetic research in a population-based survey: the Baltimore epidemiologic catchment area follow-up. Community Genet 11:171–178PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mihaescu R, van Hoek M, Sijbrands EJ, Uitterlinden AG, Witteman JC, Hofman A, van Duijn CM, Janssens AC (2009) Evaluation of risk prediction updates from commercial genome-wide scans. Genet Med 11:588PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Nuffield Council on Bioethics (2010) Medical profiling and online medicine: the ethics of ‘personalised healthcare’ in a consumer age. Nuffield Press, OxfordshireGoogle Scholar
  37. Ransohoff DF, Khoury MJ (2010) Personal genomics: information can be harmful. Eur J Clin Invest 40:64–68PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Richards M (2010) Reading the runes of my genome: a personal exploration of retail genetics. New Genet Soc 29:291–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Silverman D (2006) Interpreting qualitative data. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  40. United States Government Accountability Office (2006) Nutrigenetic testing: tests purchased from four websites mislead consumers. US GAO, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  41. United States Government Accountability Office (2010) Direct-to-consumer genetic tests misleading test results are further complicated by deceptive marketing and other questionable practices .http://energycommerce.house.gov/documents/20100722/Kutz.Testimony.07.22.2010.pdf. Accessed 10 Aug 2010
  42. Wade CH, Wilfond BS (2006) Ethical and clinical practice considerations for genetic counselors related to direct-to-consumer marketing of genetic tests. Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet 142:284–292Google Scholar
  43. Wilde A, Meiser B, Mitchell PB, Schofield PR (2010) Public interest in predictive genetic testing, including direct-to-consumer testing, for susceptibility to major depression: preliminary findings. Eur J Hum Genet 18:47–51PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wright CF, Gregory-Jones S (2010) Size of the direct-to-consumer genomic testing market. Genet Med 12:594PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Biomedical Ethics and LawKatholieke Universiteit LeuvenLeuvenBelgium
  2. 2.Department of Clinical Genetics and Department of Medical Humanities, EMGO Institute for Health and Care ResearchVU University Medical CenterAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations