Comprehension and data-sharing behavior of direct-to-consumer genetic test customers

Public Health Genomics

Volumn 19, Issue 2, 2016, Pages 116-124

  McGrath, Scott P ^a   Coleman, Jason ^a   Najjar, Lotfollah ^a   Fruhling, Ann ^a   Bastola, Dhundy R ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA AT OMAHA   (United States)

Author keywords

Data sharing behavior; Direct to consumer genetic test; Honest brokers; Risk comprehension

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; COMPREHENSION; EDUCATIONAL STATUS; FEMALE; GENETIC SCREENING; HUMAN; INCOME; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; LOGISTIC REGRESSION ANALYSIS; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS; NON INSULIN DEPENDENT DIABETES MELLITUS; ONLINE ANALYSIS; PATIENT ATTITUDE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBABILITY; SCREENING TEST; CONSUMER HEALTH INFORMATION; GENETICS; MIDDLE AGED; PROCEDURES; RISK; STANDARDS; STATISTICAL MODEL; YOUNG ADULT;

ADULT; AGED; COMPREHENSION; CONSUMER HEALTH INFORMATION; DIABETES MELLITUS, TYPE 2; FEMALE; GENETIC TESTING; HUMANS; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; LOGISTIC MODELS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS; RISK; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84961218557     PISSN: 16624246     EISSN: 16628063     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1159/000444477     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Collins FS. The Language of Life: DNA and the Revolution in Personalized Medicine. New York, Harper Perennial, 2010.
2. Weston AD, Hood L. Systems biology, proteomics, and the future of health care: toward predictive, preventative, and personalized medicine. J Proteome Res. 2004; 3: 179-196.
3. Jain KK. Personalized medicine. Curr Opin Mol Ther. 2002; 4: 548-558.
4. Zimmern RL, Khoury MJ. The impact of genomics on public health practice: the case for change. Public Health Genomics. 2012; 15: 118-124.
5. Khoury MJ, Berg A, Coates R, Evans J, Teutsch SM, Bradley LA. The evidence dilemma in genomic medicine. Health Aff (Millwood) 2008; 27: 1600-1611.
6. Khoury MJ, Bowen MS, Burke W, Coates RJ, Dowling NF, Evans JP, Reyes M, St Pierre J. Current priorities for public health practice in addressing the role of human genomics in improving population health. Am J Prev Med. 2011; 40: 486-493.
7. Manolio TA, Brooks LD, Collins FS. A Hap-Map harvest of insights into the genetics of common disease. J Clin Invest. 2008; 118: 1590-1605.
8. Hogarth S, Javitt G, Melzer D. The current landscape for direct-To-consumer genetic testing: legal, ethical, and policy issues. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet. 2008; 9: 161-182.
9. Cornel MC, van El CG, Borry P. The challenge of implementing genetic tests with clinical utility while avoiding unsound applications. J Community Genet. 2014; 5: 7-12.
10. Hunter DJ, Khoury MJ, Drazen JM. Letting the genome out of the bottle - will we get our wish?. N Engl J Med. 2008; 358: 105-107.
11. Lachance CR, Erby LA, Ford BM, Allen VC, Kaphingst KA. Informational content, literacy demands, and usability of websites offering health-related genetic tests directly to consumers. Genet Med. 2010; 12: 304-312.
12. Nielsen-Bohlman L, Panzer AM, Kindig DA. Health Literacy: A Prescription to End Confusion. Washington, National Academies Press, 2004.
13. Davis TC, Wolf MS. Health literacy: implications for family medicine. Fam Med. 2004; 36: 595-598.
14. Sorensen K, Van den Broucke S, Fullam J, Doyle G, Pelikan J, Slonska Z, Brand H. Health literacy and public health: a systematic review and integration of definitions and models. BMC Public Health. 2012; 12: 80.
15. Commission of the European Communities: Together for Health: A Strategic Approach for the EU 2008-2013. Brussels, European Commission, 2007.
16. Kutner M, Greenberg E, Baer J. A First Look at the Literacy of Americas Adults in the 21st Century. NCES 2006-470. National Center for Education Statistics, 2006.
17. Leighton J, Valverde K, Bernhardt B. The general publics understanding and perception of direct-To-consumer genetic test results. Public Health Genomics. 2011; 15: 11-21.
18. Kaufman DJ, Bollinger JM, Dvoskin RL, Scott JA. Risky business: risk perception and the use of medical services among customers of DTC personal genetic testing. J Genet Couns. 2012; 21: 413-422.
19. Dvoskin R. GPPC Releases Updated List of DTC Genetic Testing Companies. August 2011. https://web.archive.org/web/.20120116233118/http://www.dnapolicy.org/.resources/DTCTableAug2011Alphabydisease. pdf
20. Ostergren JE, Gornick MC, Carere DA, Kalia SS, Uhlmann WR, Ruffin MT, Mountain JL, Green RC, Roberts JS; PGen Study Group: How well do customers of direct-To-consumer personal genomic testing services comprehend genetic test results?. Findings from the Impact of Personal Genomics Study. Public Health Genomics. 2015; 18: 216-224.
21. Poulsen P, Kyvik KO, Vaag A, Beck-Nielsen H. Heritability of type II (non-insulin-dependent) diabetes mellitus and abnormal glucose tolerance - A population-based twin study. Diabetologia. 1999; 42: 139-145.
22. Hawkes C. Twin studies in medicine - what do they tell us?. QJM. 1997; 90: 311-321.
23. DeNavas-Walt C, Proctor BD, Smith JC; US Census Bureau: Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2012. Current Population Reports, P60-245. Washington, US Government Printing Office, 2013.
24. National Cancer Institute: Health Information National Trends Survey 4 (HINTS 4). Cycle 3 Methodology Report. Rockville, Westat, 2014.
25. Bureau of Labor Statistics: Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2014-15 Edition. US Department of Labor, 2014.
26. Institute of Medicine (US) Roundtable on Translating Genomic-Based Research for Health: Innovations in Service Delivery in the Age of Genomics: Workshop Summary. Washington, National Academies Press, 2009.
27. Uscher J. Increasing the Ranks of Medical Geneticists, AAMC Reporter. Association of American Medical Colleges, 2013.
28. DeBoer GE. Scientific literacy: another look at its historical and contemporary meanings and its relationship to science education reform. J Res Sci Teach. 2000; 37: 582-601.
29. Annas GJ, Elias S. 23andMe and the FDA. N Engl J Med. 2014; 370: 985-988.
30. Rubin R. FDA okays first direct-To-consumer genetic test. JAMA. 2015; 313: 1306-1306.