Skip to main content
Log in

Interest in and Experience with Genetic Testing for Late-Onset Medical Conditions: Results from the National Poll on Healthy Aging

  • Original Research
  • Published:
The Journal of Prevention of Alzheimer's Disease Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

The increasing availability of genetic testing for late-onset diseases such as Alzheimer’s disease necessitates understanding public perceptions and experiences of such testing among at-risk populations.

Objectives

To assess (a) prior uptake of genetic testing (both in medical and direct-to-consumer settings), (b) future interest in genetic testing for late-onset conditions (e.g., Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease), and (c) perceptions of testing pros and cons among middle-to-older aged adults.

Design

Online, cross-sectional survey study.

Setting

The National Poll on Healthy Aging at the University of Michigan is a recurring biannual survey of a nationally representative sample of adults aged 50–80. This study reports on a March 2018 fielding of the survey that included a genetic testing module administered to adults aged 50–64.

Participants

Study participants were 991 community-dwelling adults aged 50–64.

Measurements

Survey measures assessed (a) prior use of genetic testing, (b) reasons for engaging in genetic testing, (c) interest in different types of genetic testing, including for Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, and macular degeneration, and (d) perceived benefits, risks, and limitations of testing.

Results

Previous uptake of genetic testing was limited (medical use: 5.1%; direct-to-consumer: 10.8%), with direct-to-consumer test uptake higher among respondents with household incomes of $100,000 or more. Over half of adults endorsed interest in genetic testing for estimation of disease risk (58.9%), ancestry knowledge (58%), and informing medical care (53.8%). Interest in genetic testing for specific late-onset conditions was even higher, including Alzheimer’s disease (70%), Parkinson’s disease (65.3%), and macular degeneration (64.3%). Multivariable logistic regression models showed that older adults more likely to be interested in genetic testing for medical or disease risk purposes were those with higher levels of education (college degree or higher) and who endorsed the benefits of genetic testing, whereas respondents who endorsed testing risks and limitations were less likely to express interest.

Conclusion

While prior use of genetic testing among the middle-to-older age population was low, interest in testing for Alzheimer’s disease and other late-onset conditions was high. This high interest may translate into increased uptake given expanded access to testing and recent treatment advances for Alzheimer’s disease.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA). FDA allows marketing of first direct-to-consumer tests that provide genetic risk information for certain conditions [Internet]. April 6 2017. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-allows-marketing-first-direct-consumer-tests-provide-genetic-risk-information-certain-conditions.

  2. Farrer LA, Brin MF, Elsas L, et al. Statement on use of apolipoprotein E testing for Alzheimer disease. American College of Medical Genetics/American Society of Human Genetics Working Group on ApoE and Alzheimer disease. JAMA. 1995;274(20):1627–1629. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1995.03530200063039.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Goldman JS, Hahn SE, Catania JW, et al. Genetic counseling and testing for Alzheimer disease: joint practice guidelines of the American College of Medical Genetics and the National Society of Genetic Counselors. Genet Med. 2011;13(6):597–605. https://doi.org/10.1097/GIM.0b013e31821d69b8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. van Dyck CH, Swanson CJ, Aisen P, et al. Lecanemab in early Alzheimer’s disease. N Engl J Med. 2023;388(1):9–21. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2212948.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA). FDA Grants Accelerated Approval for Alzheimer’s Drug [Internet]. June 7 2021. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-grants-accelerated-approval-alzheimers-drug.

  6. U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA). FDA Grants Accelerated Approval for Alzheimer’s Disease Treatment [Internet]. January 6 2023. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-grants-accelerated-approval-alzheimers-disease-treatment.

  7. Cummings J, Apostolova L, Rabinovici GD, et al. Lecanemab: appropriate use recommendations. J Prev Alzheimers Dis. 2023;(10):362–377. https://doi.org/10.14283/jpad.2023.30.

  8. Blasco D, Roberts JS. Editorial: Implications of emerging uses of genetic testing for Alzheimer’s disease. J Prev Alzheimers Dis. 2023;(10):359–361. https://doi.org/10.14283/jpad.2023.46.

  9. Cummings JL. Alzheimer’s disease clinical trials: changing the paradigm. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2011;13:437–442. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11920-011-0234-y.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Schneider LS, Sano M. Current Alzheimer’s disease clinical trials: Methods and placebo outcomes. Alzheimers Dement. 2009;5(5):388–397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jalz.2009.07.038.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Huang LK, Kuan YC, Lin HW, Hu CJ. Clinical trials of new drugs for Alzheimer disease: a 2020–2023 update. J Biomed Sci. 2023;30(83). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12929-023-00976-6.

  12. Koeller DR, Uhlmann WR, Carere DA, Green RC, Roberts JS, for the PGen Study Group. Utilization of genetic counseling after direct-to-consumer genetic testing: findings from the Impact of Personal Genomics (PGen) Study. J Genet Couns. 2017;26(6):1270–79. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-017-0106-7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Hoskovec JM, Bennett RL, Carey ME, et al. Projecting the supply and demand for certified genetic counselors: a workforce study. J Genet Couns. 2018;27(1):16–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-017-0158-8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Stoll K, Kubendran S, Cohen SA. The past, present and future of service delivery in genetic counseling: keeping up in the era of precision medicine. Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet. 2018;178(1):24–37. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajmg.c.31602.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Pavarini G, Hamdi L, Lorimer J, Singh I. Young people’s moral attitudes and motivations towards direct-to-consumer genetic testing for inherited risk of Alzheimer disease. Eur J Med Genet. 2021;64(6):104180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmg.2021.104180.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Roberts JS, Christensen KD, Green RC. Using Alzheimer’s disease as a model for genetic risk disclosure: implications for personal genomics. Clin Genet. 2011;80(5):407–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-0004.2011.01739.x.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Zallen DT. “Well, good luck with that”: reactions to learning of increased genetic risk for Alzheimer disease. Genet Med. 2018;20(11):1462–7. https://doi.org/10.1038/gim.2018.13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Caselli RJ, Langbaum J, Marchant GE, et al. Public perceptions of presymptomatic testing for Alzheimer disease. Mayo Clin Proc. 2014;89(10):1389–1396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mayocp.2014.05.016.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Frazier L, Calvin AO, Mudd GT, Cohen MZ. Understanding of genetics among older adults. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2006;38(2):126–132. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1547-5069.2006.00089.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Cutler SJ, Hodgson LG. To test or not to test: interest in genetic testing for Alzheimer’s disease among middle-aged adults. Am J Alzheimers Dis Other Demen. 2003;18(1):9–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/153331750301800106.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Mählmann L, Röcke C, Brand A, Hafen E, Vayena E. Attitudes towards personal genomics among older Swiss adults: an exploratory study. Appl Transl Genom. 2016;8:9–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atg.2016.01.009.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Skirton H, Frazier LQ, Calvin AO, Cohen MZ. A legacy for the children–attitudes of older adults in the United Kingdom to genetic testing. J Clin Nurs. 2006;15(5):565–573. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2006.01372.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Neumann PJ, Hammitt JK, Mueller C, et al. Public attitudes about genetic testing for Alzheimer’s disease. Health Aff (Millwood). 2001;20(5):252–264. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.20.5.252.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Roberts JS. Assessing the psychological impact of genetic susceptibility testing. Hastings Cent Rep. 2019;49(S1):S38–S43. https://doi.org/10.1002/hast.1015.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. National Poll on Healthy Aging. Survey Methods: National Poll on Healthy Aging [Internet]. Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation: National Poll on Healthy Aging—University of Michigan. Available from: https://www.healthyagingpoll.org/survey-methods.

  26. Malani P, Kullgren J, Solway E. National Poll on Healthy Aging (NPHA), [United States], March 2018. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2021-06-11. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3886/E130461V2.

  27. Matalon DR, Zepeda-Mendoza CJ, Aarabi M, et al. Clinical, technical, and environmental biases influencing equitable access to clinical genetics/genomics testing: A points to consider statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG). Genet Med. 2023;25(6):100812. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gim.2023.100812.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Roberts JS, Gornick MC, Carere DA, Uhlmann WR, Ruffin MT, Green RC. Direct-to-consumer genetic testing: user motivations, decision making, and perceived utility of results. Public Health Genomics. 2017;20(1):36–45. https://doi.org/10.1159/000455006.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Roberts JS, Cupples LA, Relkin NR, Whitehouse PJ, Green RC, for the REVEAL (Risk Evaluation and Education for Alzheimer’s Disease) Study Group. Genetic risk assessment for adult children of people with Alzheimer’s disease: the Risk Evaluation and Education for Alzheimer’s Disease (REVEAL) study. J Geriatr Psychiatry Neurol. 2005;18(4):250–255. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891988705281883.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Roberts JS. Anticipating response to predictive genetic testing for Alzheimer’s disease: a survey of first-degree relatives. Gerontologist. 2000;40(1):43–52. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/40.1.43.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. American Nurses Credentialing Center. ACGC Program Directory [Internet]. ACGC. January 12 2024. Available from: https://www.gceducation.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/ACGC-Program-Directory-12January2024.pdf.

  32. World Health Organization. Global action plan on the public health response to dementia 2017–2025 [Internet]. World Health Organization. 2017. Available from: https://iris.who.int/handle/10665/259615.

  33. Alzheimer’s Association. 2021 Alzheimer’s disease facts and figures. Alzheimers Dement. 2021;17(3):327–406. https://doi.org/10.1002/alz.12328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Rubin R. New test to help diagnose Alzheimer disease. JAMA. 2022;327(23):2281. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2022.9847.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge support from the National Poll on Healthy Aging (NPHA), whose survey data for this manuscript has been made publicly available. The NPHA is conducted by the University of Michigan Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation and sponsored by the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) and Michigan Medicine; its leadership team includes Dr. Jeffrey Kullgren, Dr. Erica Solway, Dianne Singer, Matthias Kirch, and Dr. Preeti Malani. The authors would also like to thank Sarah McCain, MPH, for her assistance with manuscript preparation.

Funding

Funding: This work was supported by fellowships from the National Institutes of Health (T32 HG010030 to SJF and DB), the University of Michigan (Department of Health Behavior & Health Education doctoral student award to SJF), and the National Institutes of Health-funded Michigan Alzheimer’s Disease Center (P30 AG072931 to JSR). The sponsors had no role in the design and conduct of the study; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the preparation of the manuscript; or the review or approval of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. Scott Roberts.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interests: SJF, DB, MM, and JSR have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Ethical standards: The University of Michigan Institutional Review Board (IRB) reviewed this study and deemed it exempt from human subjects review because it was a study of deidentified respondents.

Additional information

How to cite this article: S.J. Feldman, D. Blasco, M. Mones, et al. Interest in and Experience with Genetic Testing for Late-Onset Medical Conditions: Results from the National Poll on Healthy Aging. J Prev Alz Dis 2024; https://doi.org/10.14283/jpad.2024.69

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Feldman, S.J., Blasco, D., Mones, M. et al. Interest in and Experience with Genetic Testing for Late-Onset Medical Conditions: Results from the National Poll on Healthy Aging. J Prev Alzheimers Dis 11, 1079–1086 (2024). https://doi.org/10.14283/jpad.2024.69

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.14283/jpad.2024.69

Key words

Navigation