Lessons Learned from Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing

Obesity and Nutrigenetics Testing: New Insights

BACKGROUND

Obesity results from interactions between environmental factors, lifestyle, and genetics. In this scenario, nutritional genomics and nutrigenetic tests stand out, with the promise of helping patients avoid or treat obesity. This narrative review investigates whether nutrigenetic tests may help to prevent or treat obesity. Scientific studies in PubMed Science Direct were reviewed, focusing on using nutrigenetic tests in obesity. The work showed that few studies address the use of tools in obesity. However, most of the studies listed reported their beneficial effects in weight loss. Ethical conflicts were also discussed, as in most countries, there are no regulations to standardize these tools, and there needs to be more scientific knowledge for health professionals who interpret them. International Societies, such as the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics and the Brazilian Association for the Study of Obesity and Metabolic Syndrome, do not recommend nutrigenetic tests to prevent or treat obesity, especially in isolation. Advancing nutrigenetics depends on strengthening three pillars: regulation between countries, scientific evidence with clinical validity, and professional training.

Direct to consumer genetic testing in Denmark-public knowledge, use, and attitudes

Direct to consumer genetic testing (DTC-GT) is offered by commercial companies, but the use in the general population has only been sparsely investigated. A questionnaire was sent to 2013 representative Danish citizens asking about their awareness and use of DTC-GT. Individuals who had undergone a genetic test were interviewed to determine if the results had been understood correctly. A pilot study with 2469 questionnaires was performed before this study. In total, 45.4% of the individuals (n = 913/2013) had knowledge about DTC-GT and 2.5% (n = (18 + 5)/913) previously had a genetic test by a private company and 5.8% through the public health care system (n = (48 + 5)/913). Curiosity about own genetic information was the most frequent motivation (40.9%, n = 9/22) as well as knowledge of ancestry (36.4%, n = 8/22) and advice about lifestyle, exercise, or diet (36.4%, n = 8/22). Test of own disease risk was given as a reason in 27.3% (n = 6/22) and seeking possible explanation of specific symptoms in 13.6% (n = 3/22). 50% (n = 11/22) answered that they had become concerned after the test, and 17.4% (n = 4/23) had consulted their GP. Interviews in a subset of respondents from the pilot study revealed problems with understanding the results. One problem was how to interpret the genetic test results with respect to individual risk for a disease. For example, the difference between disease causing genetic variants in monogenetic diseases versus statistical risks by SNPs in multifactorial diseases was not understood by the respondents.

Preparing genetic counselors to serve Native American communities

As a medical specialty, genetic counseling (GC) espouses cultural sensitivity, a patient-centered approach, and an eye for the individual, familial, and community-wide implications of genetics and genomics in medicine. Within the past decades, the field of GC has recognized and attempted to address a need for the greater diversity of providers and practice settings that will help to address health inequities across underrepresented communities (Channaoui et al., 2020). Accreditation for GC training programs mandates equipping students with multicultural sensitivity and knowledge on health disparities. Currently however, there are limited published data about how GC programs are accomplishing these aims for Native American individuals and communities. Furthermore, there are limited published data on the unique needs and perspectives of Native Americans who may seek GC services. This disconnect may pose barriers for genetic counselors who aim to provide respectful and relevant care to Native American patients. Education of GC students is one important way to set the tone for a lifetime of practice and to inspire awareness and action toward alleviating disparities. Thus, we surveyed GC training programs in North America to investigate how they are working to (a) address disparities in Native American professional representation and student enrollment, (b) deliver culturally relevant curricula and clinical opportunities that serve the needs of Native Americans, and (c) positively engage Native American communities in North America. We found that reported recruitment efforts, curricula content, clinical opportunities, and community engagement efforts to address the needs of Native American are limited across GC training programs surveyed. By bringing awareness to current methods, success factors, and barriers in this space, we hope to open the door for meaningful partnerships between leaders of Native American communities and GC training programs in the pursuit of greater equity.