Journal of Genetic Counseling

, Volume 26, Issue 6, pp 1270–1279 | Cite as

Utilization of Genetic Counseling after Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing: Findings from the Impact of Personal Genomics (PGen) Study

  • Diane R Koeller
  • Wendy R Uhlmann
  • Deanna Alexis Carere
  • Robert C Green
  • J Scott RobertsEmail author
  • for the PGen Study Group
Original Research


Direct-to-consumer personal genomic testing (DTC-PGT) results lead some individuals to seek genetic counseling (GC), but little is known about these consumers and why they seek GC services. We analyzed survey data pre- and post-PGT from 1026 23andMe and Pathway Genomics customers. Participants were mostly white (91%), female (60%), and of high socioeconomic status (80% college educated, 43% household income of ≥$100,000). After receiving PGT results, 43 participants (4%) made or planned to schedule an appointment with a genetic counselor; 390 (38%) would have used in-person GC had it been available. Compared to non-seekers, GC seekers were younger (mean age of 38 vs 46 years), more frequently had children <18 (26% vs 16%), and were more likely to report previous GC (37% vs 7%) and genetic testing (30% vs 15%). In logistic regression analysis, seeking GC was associated with previous GC use (OR = 6.5, CI = 3.1–13.8), feeling motivated to pursue DTC-PGT for health reasons (OR = 4.3, CI = 1.8–10.1), fair or poor self-reported health (OR = 3.1, CI = 1.1–8.3), and self-reported uncertainty about the results (OR = 1.8, CI = 1.1–2.7). These findings can help GC providers anticipate who might seek GC services and plan for clinical discussions of DTC-PGT results.


Direct-to-consumer DTC Genetic testing Personal genomic testing Health behavior Genetic counseling Personalized medicine Genetic counselors 



The Impact of Personal Genomics (PGen) Study was funded by a grant from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Human Genomic Research Institute (NHGRI) (R01-HG005092). DRK was supported by the Jane Engelberg Memorial Fellowship from the National Society of Genetic Counselors. DAC is supported by a Michael G. DeGroote Postdoctoral Fellowship from McMaster University and a Canadian Institutes of Health Research Postdoctoral Fellowship. Nonauthor members of the PGen Study team include the following: Sarah Kalia, Kurt Christensen, Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital; Mick Couper, Brent Doil, Michele Gornick, Lan Le, Jenny Ostergren, University of Michigan School of Public Health; Joanna Mountain, 23andMe; Glenn Braunstein, Pathway Genomics; Scott Crawford, Sound Rocket; Adrienne Cupples, Clara Chen, Catharine Wang, Boston University; Sarah Gollust, University of Minnesota; Stacy Gray, City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center; Kimberly Kaphingst, University of Utah; Barbara Koenig, University of California-San Francisco; Lisa Lehmann, US Department of Veterans Affairs; and Richard Sharp, Mayo Clinic. The authors also wish to acknowledge Margaret Helm, Caroline Weipert, and Erica Schonman for their assistance.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

Diane R Koeller, Wendy R Uhlmann, Deanna Alexis Carere, J Scott Roberts and the PGen Study Group declare that they have no conflict of interest. Robert C Green receives compensation for speaking or consultation from AIA, GenePeeks, Helix, Illumina, Prudential and Veritas, and is co-founder and advisor to Genome Medical, Inc.

Human Studies and Informed Consent

All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000 (5). Informed consent was obtained from all patients for being included in the study.

Animal Studies

No animal studies were carried out by the authors for this article.


  1. ACMG Board of Directors. (2015). Direct-to-consumer genetic testing: A revised position statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. Genetics in Medicine, 18(2), 207–208. doi: 10.1038/gim.2015.190.Google Scholar
  2. Ashida, S., Goodman, M. S., Stafford, J., Lachance, C., & Kaphingst, K. A. (2012). Perceived familiarity with and importance of family health history among a medically underserved population. Journal of Community Genetics, 3(4), 285–295. doi: 10.1007/s12687-012-0097-x.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Bloss, C. S., Darst, B. F., Topol, E. J., & Schork, N. J. (2011). Direct-to-consumer personalized genomic testing. Human Molecular Genetics, 20(R2), R132–R141. doi: 10.1093/hmg/ddr349.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Bloss, C. S., Wineinger, N. E., Darst, B. F., Schork, N. J., & Topol, E. J. (2013). Impact of direct-to-consumer genomic testing at long term follow-up. Journal of Medical Genetics, 50(6), 393–400. doi: 10.1136/jmedgenet-2012-101207.
  5. Bowling, B. V., Acra, E. E., Wang, L., Myers, M. F., Dean, G. E., Markle, G. C., et al. (2008). Development and evaluation of a genetics literacy assessment instrument for undergraduates. Genetics, 178(1), 15–22. doi: 10.1534/genetics.107.079533.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Bunnik, E. M., Janssens, A. C. J. W., & Schermer, M. H. N. (2015). Personal utility in genomic testing: Is there such a thing? Journal of Medical Ethics, 41(4), 322–326. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2013-101887.
  7. Carere, D. A., Couper, M. P., Crawford, S. D., Kalia, S. S., Duggan, J. R., Moreno, T. A., et al. (2014). Design, methods, and participant characteristics of the impact of personal genomics (PGen) study, a prospective cohort study of direct-to-consumer personal genomic testing customers. Genome Medicine, 6(12), 96. doi: 10.1186/s13073-014-0096-0.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Carere, D. A., Kraft, P., Kaphingst, K. A., Roberts, J. S., & Green, R. C. (2016). Consumers report lower confidence in their genetics knowledge following direct-to-consumer personal genomic testing. Genetics in Medicine, 18(1), 65–72. doi: 10.1038/gim.2015.34.
  9. Caulfield, T., & McGuire, A. L. (2012). Direct-to-consumer genetic testing: Perceptions, problems, and policy responses. Annual Review of Medicine, 63, 23–33. doi: 10.1146/annurev-med-062110-123753.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Chung, S., Mehta, K., Shumway, M., Alvidrez, J., & Perez-Stable, E. J. (2009). Risk perception and preference for prevention of Alzheimer’s disease. Value in Health, 12(4), 450–458. doi: 10.14440/jbm.2015.54.A.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Darst, B. F., Madlensky, L., Schork, N. J., Topol, E. J., & Bloss, C. S. (2013). Perceptions of genetic counseling services in direct-to-consumer personal genomic testing. Clinical Genetics, 84(4), 335–339. doi: 10.1111/cge.12166.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Dohany, D., Gustafson, S., Ducaine, W., & Zakalik, D. (2012). Psychological distress with direct-toconsumer genetic testing: a case report of an unexpected BRCA positibe test result. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 21(3), 399–401.Google Scholar
  13. Food & Drug Administration. (2017). FDA allows marketing of first direct-to-consumer tests that provide genetic risk information for certain conditions. Retrieved from
  14. Francke, U., Dijamco, C., Kiefer, A. K., Eriksson, N., Moiseff, B., Tung, J. Y., & Mountain, J. L. (2013). Dealing with the unexpected: consumer responses to direct-access BRCA mutation testing. PeerJ, 1, e8. doi: 10.7717/peerj.8.
  15. Furr, L. A., & Kelly, S. E. (1999). The genetic knowledge index: Developing a standard measure of genetic knowledge. Genetic Testing, 3(2), 193–199. doi: 10.1089/gte.1999.3.193.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Gutierrez, A. (2013). Warning Letter. Retrieved from
  17. Harris, A., Kelly, S. E., & Wyatt, S. (2013). Counseling customers: Emerging roles for genetic counselors in the direct-to-consumer genetic testing market. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 22(2), 277–288. doi: 10.1007/s10897-012-9548-0.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Hock, K. T., Christensen, K. D., Yashar, B. M., Roberts, J. S., Gollust, S. E., & Uhlmann, W. R. (2011). Direct-to-consumer genetic testing: An assessment of genetic counselors’ knowledge and beliefs. Genetics in Medicine, 13(4), 325–332. doi: 10.1097/GIM.0b013e3182011636.
  19. Hudson, K., Javitt, G., Burke, W., Byers, P., & ASHG Social Issues Committee. (2007). ASHG Statement on Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing in the United States. American Journal of Human Genetics, 81(3), 635–637.Google Scholar
  20. James, K. M., Cowl, C. T., Tilburt, J. C., Sinicrope, P. S., Robinson, M. E., Frimannsdottir, K. R., et al. (2011). Impact of direct-to-consumer predictive genomic testing on risk perception and worry among patients receiving routine care in a preventive health clinic. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 86(10), 933–940. doi: 10.4065/mcp.2011.0190.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Kalf, R. R. J., Mihaescu, R., Kundu, S., Knijff, P. D., Green, R. C., & Janssens, A. C. J. (2014). Variations in predicted risks in personal genome testing for common complex diseases. Genetics in Medicine, 16(1), 1–13. doi: 10.1038/gim.2013.80.Variations.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kaufman, D. J., Bollinger, J. M., Dvoskin, R. L., & Scott, J. A. (2012). Risky business: Risk perception and the use of medical services among customers of DTC personal genetic testing. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 21(3), 413–422. doi: 10.1007/s10897-012-9483-0.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Lehmann, L. S., Kaufman, D. J., Sharp, R. R., Moreno, T. A., Mountain, J. L., Roberts, J. S., & Green, R. C. (2012). Navigating a research partnership between academia and industry to assess the impact of personalized genetic testing. Genetics in Medicine : Official Journal of the American College of Medical Genetics, 14(2), 268–273. doi: 10.1038/gim.2011.59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Leighton, J. W., Valverde, K., & Bernhardt, B. A. (2012). The general public’s understanding and perception of direct-to-consumer genetic test results. Public Health Genomics, 15(1), 11–21. doi: 10.1159/000327159.
  25. Lipkus, I. M., Samsa, G., & Rimer, B. K. (2001). General performance on a numeracy scale among highly educated samples. Medical Decision Making, 21, 37–44.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Mathews, R., Hall, W., & Carter, A. (2012). Direct-to-consumer genetic testing for addiction susceptibility: A premature commercialisation of doubtful validity and value. Addiction, 107(12), 2069–2074. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2012.03836.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Meisel, S. F., Carere, D. A., Wardle, J., Kalia, S. S., Moreno, T. A., Mountain, J. L., et al. (2015). Explaining, not just predicting, drives interest in personal genomics. Genome Medicine, 7(1), 74. doi: 10.1186/s13073-015-0188-5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. Molster, C., Charles, T., Samanek, A., & O’Leary, P. (2009). Australian study on public knowledge of human genetics and health. Public Health Genomics, 12(2), 84–91. doi: 10.1159/000164684.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. NSGC Executive Office. (2015). Direct Access to Genetic Testing. Retrieved from
  30. Ostergren, J. E., Gornick, M. C., Carere, D. A., Kalia, S. S., Uhlmann, W. R., Ruffin, M. T., et al. (2015). How well do customers of direct-to-consumer personal genomic testing services comprehend genetic test results? Findings from the impact of personal genomics study for the PGen study group. Public Health Genomics, 18(4), 216–224. doi: 10.1159/000431250.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. Powell, K. P., Christianson, C. A., Cogswell, W. A., Dave, G., Verma, A., Eubanks, S., & Henrich, V. C. (2012). Educational needs of primary care physicians regarding direct-to-consumer genetic testing. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 21(3), 469–478. doi: 10.1007/s10897-011-9471-9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Roberts, J. S., & Ostergren, J. (2013). Direct-to-consumer genetic testing and personal genomics services: A review of recent empirical studies. Current Genetic Medicine Reports, 1(3), 182–200. doi: 10.1007/s40142-013-0018-2.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. Smerecnik, C. M. R., Mesters, I., De Vries, N. K., & De Vries, H. (2011). Applying a theory-based framework to understand public knowledge of genetic risk factors: A case for the distinction between how-to knowledge and principles knowledge. Public Health Genomics, 14(4–5), 259–270. doi: 10.1159/000294149.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Uhlmann, W. R., & Sharp, R. R. (2012). Genetic testing integration panels (GTIPs): A novel approach for considering integration of direct-to-consumer and other new genetic tests into patient care. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 21(3), 374–381. doi: 10.1007/s10897-011-9468-4.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. van der Wouden, C. H., Carere, D. A., Maitland-van der Zee, A. H., Ruffin, M. T., Roberts, J. S., & Green, R. C. (2016). Consumer perceptions of interactions with primary care providers after direct-to-consumer personal genomic testing. Annals of Internal Medicine. doi: 10.7326/M15-0995.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Wade, C. H., & Wilfond, B. S. (2006). Ethical and clinical practice considerations for genetic counselors related to direct-to-Consuemr Marketing of Genetic Tests. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part C, 142C, 284–292. doi: 10.1002/ajmg.c.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ware, J., & Sherbourne, C. (1992). The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Medical Care, 30(6), 473–483.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Wasson, K., Cherny, S., Sanders, T. N., Hogan, N. S., & Helzlsouer, K. J. (2014). Who are you going to call? Primary care patients’ disclosure decisions regarding direct-to-consumer genetic testing. Narrative Inquiry in Bioethics, 4(1), 53–68. doi: 10.1353/nib.2014.0026.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© National Society of Genetic Counselors, Inc. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Human GeneticsUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA
  2. 2.Department of Health Behavior and Health EducationUniversity of Michigan School of Public HealthAnn ArborUSA
  3. 3.Division of Genetics, Department of MedicineBrigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA
  4. 4.Department of Pathology and Molecular MedicineMcMaster UniversityHamiltonCanada
  5. 5.Center for Bioethics and Social Sciences in MedicineUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations