Informed choice in direct-to-consumer genetic testing (DTCGT) websites: A content analysis of benefits, risks, and limitations

Journal of Genetic Counseling

Volumn 21, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 433-439

  Singleton, Amanda ^a,c   Erby, Lori Hamby ^b   Foisie, Kathryn V ^c   Kaphingst, Kimberly A ^d  

^a GENEDX   (United States)

^b JOHNS HOPKINS BLOOMBERG SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

^c NATIONAL HUMAN GENOME RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

^d WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Content analysis; Direct to consumer; Genetic testing; Informed choice; Internet; Persuasion

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONSUMER; DECISION MAKING; GENETIC SCREENING; HUMAN; INFORMED CONSENT; INTERNET;

CHOICE BEHAVIOR; CONSUMER PARTICIPATION; GENETIC TESTING; HUMANS; INFORMED CONSENT; INTERNET;

EID: 84863631499     PISSN: 10597700     EISSN: 15733599     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10897-011-9474-6     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Baylor-Henry, M., & Drezin, N. A. (1998). Regulation of prescription drug promotion: direct-to-consumer advertising. Clin Ther, 20(Suppl C), C86-C95.
2. Bell, R. A., Wilkes, M. S., & Kravitz, R. L. (2000). The educational value of consumer-targeted prescription drug print advertising. J Fam Pract, 49(12), 1092-1098. (Pubitemid 32003442)
3. Castle, D., & Ries, N. M. (2007). Ethical, legal and social issues in nutrigenomics: the challenges of regulating service delivery and building health professional capacity. Mutat Res, 622(1-2), 138-143. (Pubitemid 47211179)
4. Department of Health and Human Services. (2008). U. S. system of oversight of genetic testing: a response to the charge of the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Report of the Secretary's Advisory Committee on Genetics, Health, and Society. Washington, DC: DHHS.
5. Federal Trade Commission (FTC). (2006). FTC facts for consumers: at-home genetic tests: a healthy dose of skepticism may be the best prescription. Washington, DC: FTC.
6. Gollust, S. E., Hull, S. C., & Wilfond, B. S. (2002). Limitations of direct-to-consumer advertising for clinical genetic testing. JAMA, 288(14), 1762-1767.
7. Gollust, S. E., Wilfond, B. S., & Hull, S. C. (2003). Direct-to-consumer sales of genetic services on the Internet. Genet Med, 5(4), 332-337. (Pubitemid 36998692)
8. Hudson, K., Javitt, G., Burke, W., & Byers, P. (2007). ASHG Statement on direct-to-consumer genetic testing in the United States. Obstet Gynecol, 110(6), 1392-1395. (Pubitemid 351326086)
9. Hull, S. C., & Prasad, K. (2001). Reading between the lines: direct-toconsumer advertising of genetic testing in the USA. Reprod Health Matters, 9(18), 44-48.
10. Hunter, D. J., Khoury, M. J., & Drazen, J. M. (2008). Letting the genome out of the bottle-will we get our wish? N Engl J Med, 358(2), 105-107.
11. Janssens, A. C., & van Duijn, C. M. (2008). Genome-based prediction of common diseases: advances and prospects. Hum Mol Genet, 17(R2), R166-R173.
12. Janssens, A. C., Gwinn, M., Bradley, L. A., et al. (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(3), 593-599. (Pubitemid 351726114)
13. Katsanis, S. H., Javitt, G., & Hudson, K. (2008). A case study of personalized medicine. Science, 320(5872), 53-54.
14. Kolor, K., Liu, T., St Pierre, J., & Khoury, M. J. (2009). Health care provider and consumer awareness, perceptions, and use of direct-to-consumer personal genomic tests, United States, 2008. Genet Med, 11(8), 595.
15. Lachance, C. R., Erby, L. A., Ford, B. M., Allen, V. C., Jr., & Kaphingst, K. A. (2010). Informational content, literacy demands, and usability of websites offering health-related genetic tests directly to consumers. Genet Med, 12(5), 304-312.
16. Marteau, T. M., & Dormandy, E. (2001). Facilitating informed choice in prenatal testing: how well are we doing? Am J Med Genet, 106(3), 185-190. (Pubitemid 32983385)
17. Mihaescu, R., van Hoek, M., Sijbrands, E. J., et al. (2009). Evaluation of risk prediction updates from commercial genome-wide scans. Genet Med, 11(8), 588-594.
18. Mouchawar, J., Hensley-Alford, S., Laurion, S., et al. (2005). Impact of direct-to-consumer advertising for hereditary breast cancer testing on genetic services at a managed care organization: a naturally-occurring experiment. Genet Med, 7(3), 191-197. (Pubitemid 40478156)
19. Shirts, B. H., & Parker, L. S. (2008). Changing interpretations, stable genes: responsibilities of patients, professionals, and policy makers in the clinical interpretation of complex genetic information. Genet Med, 10(11), 778-783.
20. Teutch, S., & Tuckson, R. V. (2008). U. S. system of oversight of genetic testing: a response to the charge of the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Washington, DC: DHHS:205-207.
21. van den Berg, M., Timmermans, D. R., ten Kate, L. P., van Vugt, J. M., & van der Wal, G. (2006). Informed decision making in the context of prenatal screening. Patient Educ Couns, 63(1-2), 110-117. (Pubitemid 44331541)
22. Wade, C. H., & Wilfond, B. S. (2006). Ethical and clinical practice considerations for genetic counselors related to direct-to-consumer marketing of genetic tests. Am J Med Genet C, 142 C (4), 284-292. (Pubitemid 44747456)
23. Wasson, K., Cook, E. D., & Helzlsouer, K. (2006). Direct-to-consumer online genetic testing and the four principles: an analysis of the ethical issues. Ethics Med, 22(2), 83-91.