The impact of raw DNA availability and corresponding online interpretation services: A mixed-methods study

Translational Behavioral Medicine

Volumn 8, Issue 1, 2018, Pages 105-112

  Allen, Caitlin G ^a   Gabriel, Jazmine ^b   Flynn, Maureen ^c   Cunningham, Tricia N ^d   Wang, Catharine ^d  

^a EMORY UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b BOSTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^c MGH INSTITUTE OF HEALTH PROFESSIONS   (United States)

^d BOSTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Direct to consumer; Genetic service delivery; Genetic testing; Precision medicine; Raw DNA

Indexed keywords

DNA;

ARTICLE; COUNSELOR; EXPERIENCE; GENETIC COUNSELING; HUMAN; MEDICAL INFORMATION; MULTIMETHOD STUDY; ONLINE ANALYSIS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; TELEPHONE INTERVIEW; TRIANGULATION; VALIDITY; CONSUMER ATTITUDE; GENETIC SCREENING; HEALTH CARE PERSONNEL; HEALTH PERSONNEL ATTITUDE; INTERNET; PROCEDURES; PSYCHOLOGY; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; QUALITY CONTROL;

ATTITUDE OF HEALTH PERSONNEL; CONSUMER BEHAVIOR; DNA; GENETIC COUNSELING; GENETIC TESTING; HEALTH PERSONNEL; HUMANS; INTERNET; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; QUALITY CONTROL;

EID: 85044599102     PISSN: 18696716     EISSN: 16139860     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/tbm/ibx009     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Kirkpatrick BE, Rashkin MD. Ancestry testing and the practice of genetic counseling. J Genet Couns. 2017;26(1):6-20.
2. Brett GR, Metcalfe SA, Amor DJ, Halliday JL. An exploration of genetic health professionals' experience with direct-to-consumer genetic testing in their clinical practice. Eur J Hum Genet. 2012;20(8):825-830.
3. Roukos DH. Innovation versus evidence: to trust direct-to-consumer personal genomic tests? Expert Rev Mol Diagn. 2011;11(1):1-4.
4. Vashlishan Murray AB, Carson MJ, Morris CA, Beckwith J. Illusions of scientific legitimacy: misrepresented science in the direct-to-consumer genetic-testing marketplace. Trends Genet. 2010;26(11):459-461.
5. Food and Drug Administration. 23andMe, Inc. 11/22/13. Available at https://www.fda.gov/iceci/enforcementactions/warningletters/2013/ucm376296.htm. Accessibility verified December 4, 2017.
6. Cariaso M, Lennon G. SNPedia: a Wiki supporting personal genome annotation, interpretation and analysis. Nucleic Acids Res. 2012;40(database issue):D1308-D1312.
7. Regalado A. How a Wiki is keeping direct-to-consumer genetics alive. Available at https://www.technologyreview.com/s/531461/how-a-wiki-iskeeping-direct-to-consumer-genetics-alive/. Accessibility verified December 4, 2017.
8. Bettinger B. What else can I do with my DNA test results? Available at http://thegeneticgenealogist.com/2013/09/22/what-else-can-i-dowith-my-dna-test-results/. Accessibility verified December 4, 2017.
9. 23andyou.com. Available at http://www.23andyou.com/3rdparty. Accessibility verified December 4, 2017.
10. Burnard P, Gill P, Stewart K, Treasure E, Chadwick B. Analysing and presenting qualitative data. Br Dent J. 2008;204(8):429-432.
11. Guest G, Namey E, Mitchel M. Collecting Qualitative Data: A Field Manual for Applied Research. Washington, DC: Sage Publications; 2013.
12. Farmer T, Robinson K, Elliott SJ, Eyles J. Developing and implementing a triangulation protocol for qualitative health research. Qual Health Res. 2006;16(3):377-394.
13. Agurs-Collins T, Ferrer R, Ottenbacher A, Waters EA, O'Connell ME, Hamilton JG. Public awareness of direct-to-consumer genetic tests: findings from the 2013 U. S. Health Information National Trends Survey. J Cancer Educ. 2015;30(4):799-807.
14. Skirton H, Goldsmith L, Jackson L, O'Connor A. Direct to consumer genetic testing: a systematic review of position statements, policies and recommendations. Clin Genet. 2012;82(3):210-218.
15. ACMG Board of Directors. Direct-to-consumer genetic testing: A revised position statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. Genet Med. 2016;18(2):207-208.
16. Gollust SE, Gordon ES, Zayac C, et al. Motivations and perceptions of early adopters of personalized genomics: Perspectives from research participants. Public Health Genomics. 2012;15(1):22-30.
17. Bloss CS, Ornowski L, Silver E, et al. Consumer perceptions of directto-consumer personalized genomic risk assessments. Genet Med. 2010;12(9):556-566.
18. 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.
19. Ostergren JE, Gornick MC, Carere DA, et al.; 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(4):216-224.
20. 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(3):413-422.
21. Kaphingst KA, McBride CM, Wade C, et al. Patients' understanding of and responses to multiplex genetic susceptibility test results. Genet Med. 2012;14(7):681-687.
22. McGrath SP, Coleman J, Najjar L, Fruhling A, Bastola DR. Comprehension and data-sharing behavior of direct-to-consumer genetic test customers. Public Health Genomics. 2016;19(2):116-124.
23. Leighton JW, Valverde K, Bernhardt BA. The general public's understanding and perception of direct-to-consumer genetic test results. Public Health Genomics. 2012;15(1):11-21.
24. Covolo L, Rubinelli S, Ceretti E, Gelatti U. Internet-based direct-toconsumer genetic testing: A systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2015;17(12):e279.
25. van der Wouden CH, Carere DA, Maitland-van der Zee AH, Ruffin MT 4th, Roberts JS, Green RC; Impact of Personal Genomics Study Group. Consumer perceptions of interactions with primary care providers after direct-to-consumer personal genomic testing. Ann Intern Med. 2016;164(8):513-522.
26. Darst BF, Madlensky L, Schork NJ, Topol EJ, Bloss CS. Characteristics of genomic test consumers who spontaneously share results with their health care provider. Health Commun. 2014;29(1):105-108.
27. Sweet K, Hovick S, Sturm AC, et al. Counselees' perspectives of genomic counseling following online receipt of multiple actionable complex disease and pharmacogenomic results: A qualitative research study. J Genet Couns. 2017;26(4):738-751.
28. National Institutes of Health. Return of genetic results in the all of us research program (day 1). Available at https://videocast.nih.gov/summary.asp?live=21883&bhcp=1. Accessibility verified December 4, 2017.
29. Food and Drug Administration. FDA allows marketing of first directto-consumer tests that provide genetic risk information for certain conditions. Available at https://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm551185.htm. Accessibility verified December 4, 2017.
30. Wang C, Cahill TJ, Parlato A, et al. Consumer use and response to online third-party raw DNA interpretation services. Mol Genet Genomic Med. 2017;1-9. https://doi.org/10.1002/mgg3.340