Direct-to-consumer genetic testing: an assessment of genetic counselors' knowledge and beliefs

Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Tests and Canadian Genetic Counselors: A Pilot Exploration of Professional Roles in Response to Novel Biotechnologies

The role of genetic counselors is evolving in response to health-related direct-to-consumer genetic tests (DTC-GT). While there is consensus in the literature that pre- and post-DTC-GT genetic counseling would benefit consumers, genetic counselors have reservations about DTC-GTs, and there is a paucity of research on providing DTC-GT counseling. This pilot quantitative survey is the first study to examine Canadian genetic counselors' views on DTC-GTs and how this disruptive biotechnology affects their role, and consumer informed consent and privacy. Canadian genetic counselors are cognizant of the harm to informed consent and privacy associated with DTC-GT, but are hesitant to engage directly, wary of misusing clinical time and resources. However, counselors are open to producing educational materials on DTC-GTs and collaborating with other stakeholders and the DTC-GT industry to support consumers. In this study, practical considerations for DTC-GT counseling sessions are discussed, including the unique needs of DTC-GT patients and the challenges posed by DTC-GTs to the genetic counseling duty to inform. This research benefits genetic counselors and physicians by examining how best to utilize genetic counselors' skills in the DTC-GT context, to minimize burdens on the healthcare system and support DTC-GT consumers.

Survey of Professionals of the European Public Health Association (EUPHA) towards Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing

BACKGROUND

The increasing availability of Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Tests (DTC-GTs) has great implications for public health (PH) and requires literate healthcare professionals to address the challenges they pose. We designed and conducted a survey to assess the state of knowledge, attitudes and behaviours of PH professionals members of the European Public Health Association (EUPHA) towards DTC-GTs.

METHODS

EUPHA members were invited to participate and fill in the survey. We performed multivariable logistic regression to evaluate associations between selected covariates and knowledge, attitudes and behaviours of healthcare professionals towards DTC-GT.

RESULTS

Three hundred and two professionals completed the survey, 66.9% of whom were not involved in genetics or genomics within their professional activities. Although 74.5% of respondents were aware that DTC-GTs could be purchased on the web, most of them reported a low level of awareness towards DTC-GTs applications and regulatory aspects. The majority did not approve the provision of DTC-GTs without consultation of a healthcare professional (91.4%), were doubtful about the test utility and validity (61%) and did not feel prepared to address citizens' questions (65.6%). Predictors of knowledge on DTC-GT were the involvement in genetics/genomics and receiving training during the studies (P < 0.0001 and P = 0.043). Predictors of attitudes were medical degree and knowledge about DTC-GTs (P = 0.006 and P = 0.027).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results revealed a high level of awareness of DTC-GT web purchasing and a moderate to low level of awareness towards their applications. Despite the overall positive attitudes, PH professionals reported a high need for strengthening regulatory aspects of DTC-GTs provision process.

How message appeals and prior product use influence information processing, risk perceptions, trust, attitudes, and genetic test purchase intentions

Within the direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic test industry, attracting customers can be difficult especially due to the highly sensitive nature of these products. How these tests are communicated to consumers may be one avenue in which companies can impact customer purchase intentions. A 2 (message sidedness: one-way vs. two-way refutational) x 2 (hedging: present vs. absent) between-subjects experiment was conducted to understand how message features and prior product use influence information processing, risk and trust perceptions, and attitude toward the genetic test, which in turn, may influence direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic test purchase intentions. Results demonstrated that having used a genetic test in the past predicted participants' trust in the company, information processing, and risk judgments; however, among those who used a genetic test, viewing a message that included hedging tended to increase their trust in the message. Trust in the message and company, information processing, and risk judgments significantly predicted participants' attitudes toward genetic testing, which in turn predicted their purchase intentions. The results suggest that in the context of DTC genetic test messaging, practitioners should strive to increase consumer trust in the message and the company and facilitate information processing, and they should work to diminish perceived risk. These results suggest opportunities for identifying other message features that may influence message and company trust, information processing, risk judgments, and attitudes related to DTC genetic testing.

Direct-to-consumer genetic testing: an updated systematic review of healthcare professionals' knowledge and views, and ethical and legal concerns

Direct-to-consumer genetic testing (DTC-GT) is becoming increasingly widespread. The aim of this research was to systematically review the literature published on healthcare professionals' knowledge and views about DTC-GT, as an update to a 2012 systematic review. The secondary aim was to assess the knowledge and views of healthcare professionals on the ethical and legal issues pertaining to DTC-GT. A systematic search was performed to identify all relevant studies that have been conducted since 2012. Studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria if they were primary research papers conducted on healthcare professionals about their knowledge and views on health-related DTC-GT. PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Medline databases were searched from 2012 to May 2021. Title and abstract were screened, and full texts were reviewed by two study authors independently. New papers included were appraised and data were extracted on study characteristics, knowledge and views on DTC-GT, and ethical and legal issues. A narrative synthesis was conducted. Nineteen new papers were included, along with eight papers from the previous review. There was considerable variation in study participants with differing views, awareness levels, and levels of knowledge about DTC-GT. Genetic counsellors and clinical geneticists generally had more concerns, experience, and knowledge regarding DTC-GT. Ten ethical concerns and four legal concerns were identified. Healthcare professionals' knowledge and experience of DTC-GT, including awareness of DTC-GT ethical and legal concerns, have only minimally improved since the previous review. This emphasises the need for further medical learning opportunities to improve the gaps in knowledge amongst healthcare professionals about DTC-GT.

Assessing the Content Quality of Online Parental Resources about Newborn Metabolic Disease Screening: A Content Analysis

Parents increasingly utilise the internet to obtain information on health practices, but the quality of online information about screening for inherited metabolic diseases (IMD) needs to be improved. A content analysis examined how IMD blood and urine tests were described online in local healthcare sectors between May and June 2021. Among the nine resources, four were blood test providers and five were urine test providers. All mentioned the test benefits and procedures. Other information, such as false-positive/negative or risk of pain, was infrequently mentioned. The descriptions of urine tests are advertised as outperforming blood tests and can be purchased from commercial laboratory sites without medical guidance. Two urine test providers claimed no false results were reported. A few commercial advertisements highlighted the simplicity of the urine test and potentially overstated the invasiveness of the blood test. We found that some advertisements described IMD as "silent killers" and emphasised the advantage of getting "reassurance" in controlling the child's developmental health and well-being. To better protect the parents, or broadly, the public interest, regulatory and oversight measures on the urine tests should be implemented to promote the proper use of genetic tests. Without timely regulation and oversight, the incorrect descriptions might create a public misconception about utilising these commercial laboratory tests to inform health decisions.

Geriatricians’ Perspectives on the Multiple Dimensions of Utility of Genetic Testing for Alzheimer’s Disease: A Qualitative Study

Background: Research advancements in Alzheimer’s disease (AD) raise opportunities for genetic testing to improve diagnostic and risk assessment. Despite emerging developments, it is unclear how geriatricians perceive the potential clinical and personal utility of genetic testing for their patients. Geriatricians’ perspectives are essential to understanding potential ethical, policy, and clinical challenges. Objective: In this paper, we report on geriatricians’ perspectives on the utility of genetic testing for AD. Methods: Semi-structured interviews with California geriatricians within different practices settings to collect and characterize their perspectives on genetic testing for AD. We used an adapted grounded theory approach to analyze recorded and transcribed interviews. Results: We identified geriatricians’ (n = 10) perspectives on the clinical and personal utility of testing, alongside their views on clinical care approaches for older adults. Geriatricians perceived minimal clinical utility of genetic testing for AD, though that may change with the availability of disease-modifying therapies. Yet, they recognized the potential personal utility of testing (e.g., assisting with future financial planning). Finally, geriatricians expressed concerns regarding patients’ anxiety from learning about genetic status, particularly through direct-to-consumer (DTC) testing. Conclusion: Our data highlight that the decision to order genetic testing requires clinical and ethical considerations, including balancing limited clinical utility with the potential personal utility. Although DTC testing is available, geriatricians perceive that they have an important role in managing the decision to test and interpreting the results. Further research is needed to inform policy and ethical guidelines to support geriatricians’ critical role to counsel patients considering clinical and DTC genetic testing.

Assessment of melanoma precision prevention materials incorporating MC1R genetic risk information

Few studies have examined cognitive responses to mailed precision prevention materials. MC1R is a robust, well-described melanoma susceptibility marker. The purpose was to assess cognitive responses to generic or precision prevention materials incorporating MC1R genetic risk. Non-Hispanic White participants (n = 1134) enrolled in a randomized controlled trial received either precision prevention materials incorporating MC1R genetic risk (higher/average) or generic prevention (standard) materials. Six months after baseline, 808 (71.3%) participants reported on the amount of prevention materials read (5-point scale); believability and clarity of materials; intention to change preventive behaviors (7-point Likert scale); and recall of their MC1R genetic risk. Comparisons were conducted using Kruskal-Wallis and chi-squared tests. Overall, participants read most to all (Mdn = 4, IQR = 2) of the prevention materials, reported high believability (Mdn = 7, IQR = 1) and clarity (Mdn = 7, IQR = 1), and moderate intention to change preventive behaviors (Mdn = 5, IQR = 2). Higher-risk participants reported slightly less clarity (Mdn = 6, IQR = 2) than either average-risk (Mdn = 6, IQR = 1, p = 2.50 × 10-3) or standard participants (Mdn = 7, IQR = 1, p = 2.30 × 10-5); and slightly less believability (Mdn = 6, IQR = 1) than standard participants (Mdn = 7, IQR = 1, p = .005). Higher-risk participants were 2.21 times as likely (95% CI = 1.43-3.43) to misremember or forget their risk compared to average-risk participants; misremembering was observed only among higher-risk participants (14%). Mailed precision prevention information were mostly read, highly believable and clear, and resulted in moderate levels of intention to change sun protection behaviors, bolstering the feasibility of population-level precision prevention. Defensive reactions may explain lower clarity, believability, and higher incorrect risk recall among higher-risk participants.

A randomized clinical trial of precision prevention materials incorporating MC1R genetic risk to improve skin cancer prevention activities among Hispanics

Purpose

Skin cancer incidence is increasing among Hispanics, who experience worse outcomes than non-Hispanic Whites. Precision prevention incorporating genetic testing for MC1R, a skin cancer susceptibility marker, may improve prevention behavior.

Patients and Methods

Hispanic participants (n=920) from Tampa, FL and Ponce, PR, were block-randomized within MC1R higher- and average-risk groups to precision prevention or generic prevention arms. We collected baseline information on demographics, family history of cancer, phenotypic characteristics, health literacy, health numeracy, and psychosocial measures. Participants reported weekday and weekend sun exposure (in hours), number of sunburns, frequency of five sun protection behaviors, intentional outdoor and indoor tanning, and skin examinations at baseline, three months, and nine months. Participants also reported these outcomes for their eldest child ≤10 years old.

Results

Among MC1R higher-risk participants, precision prevention increased sunscreen use (OR=1.74, p=0.03) and receipt of a clinical skin exam (OR=6.51, p=0.0006); and it decreased weekday sun exposure hours (β=-0.94, p=0.005) and improved sun protection behaviors (β=0.93, p=0.02) in their children. There were no significant intervention effects among MC1R average risk participants. The intervention did not elevate participant cancer worry. We also identified moderators of the intervention effect among both average- and higher-risk participants.

Conclusions

Receipt of MC1R precision prevention materials improved some skin cancer prevention behaviors among higher-risk participants and their children and did not result in reduced prevention activities among average-risk participants. Despite these encouraging findings, levels of sun protection behaviors remained suboptimal among participants, warranting more awareness and prevention campaigns targeted to Hispanics.

A Randomized Trial of Precision Prevention Materials to Improve Primary and Secondary Melanoma Prevention Activities among Individuals with Limited Melanoma Risk Phenotypes

Simple Summary

Inherited genetic variation at the MC1R gene is associated with increased risk of melanoma among non-Hispanic whites (NHWs), especially among those with skin and pigmentation characteristics that are associated with average to lower melanoma risk, for whom MC1R genetic testing may reveal unrecognized melanoma risk. We conducted a randomized trial to examine whether providing MC1R genetic risk information together with precision prevention materials would increase primary and secondary melanoma preventive behaviors compared to providing generic prevention materials only. We found that among participants with MC1R variants associated with higher risk of melanoma, the intervention increased shade-seeking or using an umbrella, increased wearing sleeved shirts, and decreased sunburns among their young children. We conclude that MC1R genetic testing and precision prevention materials may increase the practice of some sun-protective behaviors.

Abstract

Inherited variation at MC1R is associated with elevated melanoma risk among non-Hispanic whites (NHWs). MC1R genetic testing may unmask previously unrecognized disease risk, especially among individuals with few melanoma phenotypic risk factors. We recruited NHW individuals with limited phenotypic risk factors from two primary care clinics in west-central Florida. Participants (n = 1134) were randomized within MC1R genotype risk group (average/higher) to receive mailed precision prevention (i.e., intervention) or generic prevention materials. Participants reported hours of weekday and weekend sun exposure, frequency of intentional outdoor tanning and sun protection behaviors, number of sunburns, indoor tanning episodes, and skin examinations at baseline, and after 6 and 12 months. Among MC1R higher-risk participants, the intervention increased the likelihood of often or always wearing a shirt with sleeves (OR = 1.49, p = 0.03) and seeking shade or using an umbrella (OR = 1.42, p = 0.046), and it decreased the number of sunburns among their young children (β = −0.13, p = 0.03). Intervention effects were not noted among MC1R average-risk participants. Moderation analyses identified intervention effects within subgroups in average-risk and higher-risk participants. Precision prevention information conveying MC1R testing results can increase the practice of some sun protection behaviors among at-risk individuals with limited melanoma risk phenotypes and may provide a cross-generational tool to counteract increasing incidence of melanoma.

Genetic counselor approaches to BRCA1/2 direct-to-consumer genetic testing results

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network recommends clinical-grade genetic testing to confirm commercial results from direct-to-consumer genetic testing (DTC-GT) companies and third-party interpretation (TPI) services; however, the type of confirmatory testing that genetic counselors (GCs) recommend remains uncharacterized. Therefore, we aimed to describe GCs testing strategies for patients who have already obtained DTC-GT results (23andMe) or TPI data (Promethease) that reported a BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant. We invited GCs specializing in clinical cancer genetics to complete an online survey distributed to members of the National Society of Genetic Counselors. The survey, completed by 80 respondents, contained case scenarios featuring probands with variable personal and family histories of cancer. Our results show that the majority of participating GCs have counseled patients for their health-related commercial test results; 94% have encountered patient DTC-GT reports (3 per year), and 69% have encountered patient TPI data (2 per year). Most participating GCs would recommend confirmatory clinical-grade testing for probands with a positive 23andMe BRCA1/2 result (77/80, 96%). However, there was strong variability between the type of recommended testing. Approximately 20% recommended single-site analysis, 11%-14% recommended the three Ashkenazi Jewish BRCA1/2 founder mutations, 4% recommended BRCA1/2 testing, and 61%-64% recommended multi-gene panel testing. The most commonly recommended panels were split between a breast and gynecological cancer-focused panel and a broad pan-cancer panel. The majority of participants (98%-100%) would also recommend confirmatory testing for patients with positive TPI data for BRCA1/2. Similarly, results were mixed between those who recommended targeted, single-site analysis (10%-15%) compared to a multi-gene panel (72%-83%). These data show that while most GCs were uniform in their practice of recommending confirmatory testing, they are mixed in their approach to the specific type of testing they would select. These results may help inform counseling approaches and consensus for this expanding group of patients.

Direct-to-consumer genetic testing companies tell their customers to 'see a genetic counselor'. How do genetic counselors feel about direct-to-consumer genetic testing?

Professional societies, the FDA, and many direct-to-consumer genetic testing (DTC-GT) companies have highlighted the value of counseling from a medical professional with genetics expertise in order to enhance the value and minimize the risks associated with DTC-GT. However, there is limited information available identifying genetic counselors' own views on DTC-GT, their willingness to counsel consumers based on DTC-GT results, and their experiences to date seeing DTC-GT consumers in a clinical setting. We surveyed genetic counselors accessed through mailing lists associated with the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC) and the American Board of Genetic Counseling (ABGC). Response rate was estimated to be 12.2% (n = 482). A majority of all respondents (56.4%, n = 263) described themselves as feeling negatively or very negatively toward DTC-GT; only 6.9% (n = 32) described themselves as feeling positively or very positively. While 90.9% of respondents (n = 398) believed that DTC-GT would be improved with the involvement of genetic counselors, only 31.2% agreed or strongly agreed that they are comfortable providing counseling to DTC-GT consumers (n = 142). Clinical counseling of DTC-GT consumers is not routine but it is also not uncommon; 40.1% of all respondents (n = 189) have seen at least one consumer in clinic for the sole purpose of reviewing DTC-GT results. The results of our study suggest that most respondents would be more accepting of DTC-GT if genetic counseling was a part of the process, but the majority of counselors do not feel comfortable providing this service.

Adult adoptees and their use of direct-to-consumer genetic testing: Searching for family, searching for health

Use of direct-to-consumer genetic testing (DTC-GT) is rapidly growing in the United States. Yet little is known about how specific populations like domestic and intercountry adoptees use DTC-GT. Adoptees often have little to no biological family history, which may affect how they use DTC-GT. This study aimed to examine adult adoptees' motivations to pursue DTC-GT, experiences completing a test, and reasons for not completing one. An online survey consisting of 41 closed-ended questions was distributed to domestic and intercountry adult adoptees in a snowball convenience method addressing seven areas: (a) demographics and adoption experience, (b) family health history, (c) familiarity with DTC-GT, (d) actual DTC-GT experience, (e) hypothetical DTC-GT experience, (f) health results, and (g) satisfaction with DTC-GT. Descriptive statistics were performed on participant demographics and adoption characteristics, and chi-squared and Fisher's exact tests compared demographics and adoption characteristics by familiarity with DTC-GT and completion of DTC-GT. A total of 117 adoptees met criteria and completed the survey. Adoptees were motivated to use DTC-GT to search for biological family (83.0%), verify race and ethnicity (72.3%), and find out where ancestors came from (66.0%). Most participants completed DTC-GT (80.3%); completion was significantly associated with searching for biological relatives (p < 0.01) and with older age (p = 0.05). For those who received health information (59.6%), 44.4% of participants reported talking with a health provider. Adoptees are using DTC-GT to search for biological relatives, confirm their ethnicity and ancestry, and gain information about their health. Genetic counselors and health professionals should be prepared to address DTC-GT with adoptees as nearly half discussed their results with providers; findings from this study provide insight into how this unique population uses DTC-GT, and the possibility of patient-centered, tailored care for adopted patients who do not have family health history.

Failure to follow up on a medically actionable finding from direct to consumer genetic testing: A case report

BACKGROUND

A 61-year-old woman underwent direct to consumer genetic testing and was found to be homozygous for the C282Y HFE variant (c.845G>A :p.Cys282Tyr) which is classified as pathogenic/likely pathogenic for hereditary hemochromatosis. However, no action was taken by the individual.

METHODS

The individual took part in the Mayo Clinic Return of Actionable Variants Empiric (RAVE) study and the actionable finding was confirmed and results disclosed in person by a genetic counselor with subsequent referral to a hepatologist.

RESULTS

Further testing revealed iron overload with an elevated ferritin level (560 ng/ml) and increased ferritin saturation (74%). Phlebotomy was initiated with subsequent normalization of the ferritin levels (252 ng/ml).

CONCLUSION

This case highlights that actionable genetic results may not be acted on after direct to consumer testing and the need for effective genetic counseling after such testing.

Utilization of Genetic Counseling after Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing: Findings from the Impact of Personal Genomics (PGen) Study

Direct-to-consumer personal genomic testing (DTC-PGT) results lead some individuals to seek genetic counseling (GC), but little is known about these consumers and why they seek GC services. We analyzed survey data pre- and post-PGT from 1026 23andMe and Pathway Genomics customers. Participants were mostly white (91%), female (60%), and of high socioeconomic status (80% college educated, 43% household income of ≥$100,000). After receiving PGT results, 43 participants (4%) made or planned to schedule an appointment with a genetic counselor; 390 (38%) would have used in-person GC had it been available. Compared to non-seekers, GC seekers were younger (mean age of 38 vs 46 years), more frequently had children <18 (26% vs 16%), and were more likely to report previous GC (37% vs 7%) and genetic testing (30% vs 15%). In logistic regression analysis, seeking GC was associated with previous GC use (OR = 6.5, CI = 3.1-13.8), feeling motivated to pursue DTC-PGT for health reasons (OR = 4.3, CI = 1.8-10.1), fair or poor self-reported health (OR = 3.1, CI = 1.1-8.3), and self-reported uncertainty about the results (OR = 1.8, CI = 1.1-2.7). These findings can help GC providers anticipate who might seek GC services and plan for clinical discussions of DTC-PGT results.

Challenges and Opportunities for Genomics Education: Insights from an Institute of Medicine Roundtable Activity

Despite the growing availability of genomic tools for clinical care, many health care providers experience gaps in genomics knowledge and skills that serve as impediments to widespread and appropriate integration of genomics into routine care. A workshop recently held by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) Roundtable on Translating Genomics-Based Research for Health explored 1) the barriers that result in a perception among health care providers that the need for genomics education is not urgent and 2) the drivers that may spur a change in that attitude. This commentary promotes continuing and graduate education-informed by an awareness of barriers, drivers, and best practices-as the most effective approaches for preparing the workforce for genomic medicine and ultimately improving patient care, and argues that the time for education is now.

Internet-Based Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing: A Systematic Review

Background

Direct-to-consumer genetic tests (DTC-GT) are easily purchased through the Internet, independent of a physician referral or approval for testing, allowing the retrieval of genetic information outside the clinical context. There is a broad debate about the testing validity, their impact on individuals, and what people know and perceive about them.

Objective

The aim of this review was to collect evidence on DTC-GT from a comprehensive perspective that unravels the complexity of the phenomenon.

Methods

A systematic search was carried out through PubMed, Web of Knowledge, and Embase, in addition to Google Scholar according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist with the key term “Direct-to-consumer genetic test.”

Results

In the final sample, 118 articles were identified. Articles were summarized in five categories according to their focus on (1) knowledge of, attitude toward use of, and perception of DTC-GT (n=37), (2) the impact of genetic risk information on users (n=37), (3) the opinion of health professionals (n=20), (4) the content of websites selling DTC-GT (n=16), and (5) the scientific evidence and clinical utility of the tests (n=14). Most of the articles analyzed the attitude, knowledge, and perception of DTC-GT, highlighting an interest in using DTC-GT, along with the need for a health care professional to help interpret the results. The articles investigating the content analysis of the websites selling these tests are in agreement that the information provided by the companies about genetic testing is not completely comprehensive for the consumer. Given that risk information can modify consumers’ health behavior, there are surprisingly few studies carried out on actual consumers and they do not confirm the overall concerns on the possible impact of DTC-GT. Data from studies that investigate the quality of the tests offered confirm that they are not informative, have little predictive power, and do not measure genetic risk appropriately.

Conclusions

The impact of DTC-GT on consumers’ health perceptions and behaviors is an emerging concern. However, negative effects on consumers or health benefits have yet to be observed. Nevertheless, since the online market of DTC-GT is expected to grow, it is important to remain aware of a possible impact.

[A genetic ID for tomorrow?]

Dozens of private companies have emerged in 2005, with the commercial purpose of offering the public a wide variety of personal genetic tests - direct-to-consumer personal genome tests. Simultaneously, a collaborative research initiative on individual sequencing - the Personal Genome Project - was born in Harvard University, then online. This text provides an analysis of the promises and limits of the proposed individual sequencing. First, the scope and quality of individual predictive genetic sequencing are still far from being acquired. Moreover, it is necessary to question the ethical standards of confidentiality and respect for privacy in the connected information era.

The effect of disease risk probability and disease type on interest in clinic-based versus direct-to-consumer genetic testing services

The effect of disease-specific cognitions on interest in clinic-based and direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing was assessed. Participants (N = 309) responded to an online hypothetical scenario and received genetic testing-related messages that varied by risk probability (25, 50, 75 %) and disease type (Alzheimer's disease vs. Type 2 Diabetes). Post-manipulation interest increased for both testing types, but was greater for clinic-based testing. Interest was greater for Type 2 Diabetes than for Alzheimer's disease, the latter perceived as more severe and likely, and less treatable and preventable. For DTC testing only, participants allocated to the high risk condition (75 %) had greater testing interest than those in the low (25 %) category. DTC testing is perceived as a viable, but less preferred, option compared with clinic-based testing. Particularly when considering DTC genetic testing, there is a need to emphasize subjective disease-related perceptions, including risk probability.

Attitudes of cystic fibrosis patients and their parents towards direct-to-consumer genetic testing for carrier status

Background: An increasing number of direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing companies have started offering tests for carrier status of autosomal recessive disorders. Materials & Methods: A written questionnaire was administered to 47 patients and 65 parents of children with Cystic Fibrosis (CF), a common severe autosomal recessive disorder, to assess their views about the offer of DTC carrier tests. All participants were recruited from a CF patient registry in Belgium. Results & Conclusion: We found that very few patients and parents were aware of the offer of DTC genetic testing for carrier status, and were generally skeptical. A strong preference for the healthcare system over commercial companies as the provider of the test was observed. However, many participants believe people should have a right to access DTC genetic tests provided by commercial companies.

Gatekeepers or intermediaries? The role of clinicians in commercial genomic testing

Background

Many commentators on “direct-to-consumer” genetic risk information have raised concerns that giving results to individuals with insufficient knowledge and training in genomics may harm consumers, the health care system, and society. In response, several commercial laboratories offering genomic risk profiling have shifted to more traditional “direct-to-provider” (DTP) marketing strategies, repositioning clinicians as the intended recipients of advertising of laboratory services and as gatekeepers to personal genomic information. Increasing popularity of next generation sequencing puts a premium on ensuring that those who are charged with interpreting, translating, communicating and managing commercial genomic risk information are appropriately equipped for the job. To shed light on their gatekeeping role, we conducted a study to assess how and why early clinical users of genomic risk assessment incorporate these tools in their clinical practices and how they interpret genomic information for their patients.

Methods and Findings

We conducted qualitative in-depth interviews with 18 clinicians providing genomic risk assessment services to their patients in partnership with DNA Direct and Navigenics. Our findings suggest that clinicians learned most of what they knew about genomics directly from the commercial laboratories. Clinicians rely on the expertise of the commercial laboratories without the ability to critically evaluate the knowledge or assess risks.

Conclusions

DTP service delivery model cannot guarantee that providers will have adequate expertise or sound clinical judgment. Even if clinicians want greater genomic knowledge, the current market structure is unlikely to build the independent substantive expertise of clinicians, but rather promote its continued outsourcing. Because commercial laboratories have the most “skin in the game” financially, genetics professionals and policymakers should scrutinize the scientific validity and clinical soundness of the process by which these laboratories interpret their findings to assess whether self-interested commercial sources are the most appropriate entities for gate-keeping genomic interpretation.

The incorporation of predictive genomic testing into genetic counseling programs

This study explored whether genetic counseling programs are incorporating instruction about the applications and techniques of predictive genomic testing (PGT) based on student recollection, and whether this is perceived as adequate by those students. For the purpose of this study, PGT was defined as the use of genome-based testing to assess a person's risk, or susceptibility, of developing a disorder with either a known or suspected genetic component. Surveys from 114 graduates were analyzed. The majority of respondents indicated that PGT was covered in their curriculum including methodology, information generated, benefits, risks, limitations, and impact on the field of genetic counseling. A statistically significant increase in incorporating information about PGT as a whole from 2008 to 2011 was also reported. The majority of respondents reported that coverage of PGT prepared them for the American Board of Genetic Counseling (ABGC) board exam (80.6 %), to interpret PGT test results (60.2 %) and to identify clinical situations warranting testing (53.1 %). Although the majority of respondents indicated learning about a wide variety of aspects surrounding PGT, many recent graduates indicated their training was less likely to cover aspects essential for the clinical application of PGT. Therefore, genetic counseling programs should place a greater emphasis on these skills, and the development of continuing education opportunities aimed at increasing genetic counselors abilities to interpret and discuss PGT tests and identify clinical situations warranting such testing may be helpful.

Public trust in genomic risk assessment for type 2 diabetes mellitus

Patient trust in personal medical information is critical to increasing adherence to physician recommendations and medications. One of the anticipated benefits of learning of one's genomic risk for common diseases is the increased adoption of screening, preventive care and lifestyle changes. However, the equivocal results thus far reported of the positive impact of knowledge of genomic risk on behavior change may be due to lack of patients' trust in the results. As part of a clinical study to compare two methods of communication of genomic risk results for Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), we assessed patients' trust and preferred methods of delivery of genomic risk information. A total of 300 participants recruited from the general public in Durham, NC were randomized to receive their genomic risk for T2DM in-person from a genetic counselor or online through the testing company's web-site. Participants completed a baseline survey and three follow-up surveys after receiving results. Overall, participants reported high levels of trust in the test results. Participants who received their results in-person from the genetic counselor were significantly more likely to trust their results than those who reviewed their results on-line (p = 0.005). There was not a statistically significant difference in levels of trust among participants with increased genetic risk, as compared to other those with decreased or same as population risk (p = 0.1154). In the event they undergo genomic risk testing again, 55 % of participants overall indicated they would prefer to receive their results online compared to 28 % that would prefer to receive future results in-person. Of those participants preferring to receive results online, 77 % indicated they would prefer to have the option to speak to someone if they had questions with the online results (compared to accessing results online without the option of professional consultation). This is the first study to assess satisfaction with genomic risk testing by the method of delivery of the test result. The higher rate of trust in results delivered in-person suggests that online access reports may not result in serious consideration of results and lack of adoption of recommended preventive recommendations.

Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing and Personal Genomics Services: A Review of Recent Empirical Studies

Direct-to-consumer genetic testing (DTC-GT) has sparked much controversy and undergone dramatic changes in its brief history. Debates over appropriate health policies regarding DTC-GT would benefit from empirical research on its benefits, harms, and limitations. We review the recent literature (2011-present) and summarize findings across (1) content analyses of DTC-GT websites, (2) studies of consumer perspectives and experiences, and (3) surveys of relevant health care providers. Findings suggest that neither the health benefits envisioned by DTC-GT proponents (e.g., significant improvements in positive health behaviors) nor the worst fears expressed by its critics (e.g., catastrophic psychological distress and misunderstanding of test results, undue burden on the health care system) have materialized to date. However, research in this area is in its early stages and possesses numerous key limitations. We note needs for future studies to illuminate the impact of DTC-GT and thereby guide practice and policy regarding this rapidly evolving approach to personal genomics.

Are health professionals ready for direct-to-consumer genetic and genomic testing?

Direct-to-consumer genetic and genomic tests have been offered for over a decade. With the reduction in the cost of sequencing, the options for consumers will increase, with subsequent pressure on health services to interpret data and integrate the results into healthcare management. However, indications are that health professionals are grossly unprepared to deal with requests for support from those who have undertaken direct-to-consumer genetic or genomic tests. While benefits may be derived from patient-driven investigations, distinction needs to be made between the mostly uncertain clinical utility of susceptibility testing and the potential benefits of a reliably interpreted sequencing result. It is essential that we develop strategies, including enhanced professional education, to cope with the potential impact on the health services, rather than ignoring these developments. There may also be implications for the future of genetic counseling, with potential changes in the current paradigm.

Survey of European clinical geneticists on awareness, experiences and attitudes towards direct-to-consumer genetic testing

BACKGROUND

The advent of direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing (GT) has sparked a number of debates regarding the scientific validity of tests, their broad health and ethical implications for society as well as their legal status. To date, relatively few empirical studies have been published regarding this phenomenon. We conducted a survey of European clinical geneticists to gauge their awareness of, experiences with, and attitudes towards DTC GT.

METHODS

We invited 300 clinical geneticists from 28 European countries to complete an online questionnaire. Statistical analyses of closed-ended questions were performed using the STATISTICA software package. Answers to open-ended questions were analysed for recurring themes.

RESULTS

One hundred and thirty-one clinical geneticists answered our survey (response rate, 44%). Eighty-six percent (110/128) of respondents were aware of DTC GT, and over one-third had been contacted by at least one patient regarding these services. The majority (84%) of respondents did not agree with telephone medical supervision outside of an established doctor-patient relationship. The majority of clinical geneticists also found it unacceptable to provide non-face-to-face medical supervision for: (i) a presymptomatic test for a condition with very high penetrance; (ii) a predictive test for a condition that has a 'medium' penetrance of 50% to 60%; and (iii) carrier testing. For conditions that are neither treatable nor preventable and for disorders with serious health consequences, clinical geneticists were almost unanimous in expressing the unacceptability of offering such genetic tests outside of the traditional healthcare setting, without an established physician-patient relationship and without face-to-face medical supervision.

CONCLUSION

A high percentage of European clinical geneticists are aware of DTC GT and the majority do not agree with the model of provision used by many commercial companies for certain severe or actionable health conditions. Despite this disagreement with the DTC model of provision, >85% of respondents said that they would offer genetic counselling to patients who asked for a consultation after having undergone DTC genetic testing. The understanding of the views and opinions of this expert stakeholder group should be considered in the attempts to shape responsible policy and guidelines for these services.

Perceptions of genetic counseling services in direct-to-consumer personal genomic testing

To describe consumers' perceptions of genetic counseling services in the context of direct-to-consumer personal genomic testing is the purpose of this research. Utilizing data from the Scripps Genomic Health Initiative, we assessed direct-to-consumer genomic test consumers' utilization and perceptions of genetic counseling services. At long-term follow-up, approximately 14 months post-testing, participants were asked to respond to several items gauging their interactions, if any, with a Navigenics genetic counselor, and their perceptions of those interactions. Out of 1325 individuals who completed long-term follow-up, 187 (14.1%) indicated that they had spoken with a genetic counselor. The most commonly given reason for not utilizing the counseling service was a lack of need due to the perception of already understanding one's results (55.6%). The most common reasons for utilizing the service included wanting to take advantage of a free service (43.9%) and wanting more information on risk calculations (42.2%). Among those who utilized the service, a large fraction reported that counseling improved their understanding of their results (54.5%) and genetics in general (43.9%). A relatively small proportion of participants utilized genetic counseling after direct-to-consumer personal genomic testing. Among those individuals who did utilize the service, however, a large fraction perceived it to be informative, and thus presumably beneficial.

Counseling customers: emerging roles for genetic counselors in the direct-to-consumer genetic testing market

Individuals now have access to an increasing number of internet resources offering personal genomics services. As the direct-to-consumer genetic testing (DTC GT) industry expands, critics have called for pre- and post-test genetic counseling to be included with the product. Several genetic testing companies offer genetic counseling. There has been no examination to date of this service provision, whether it meets critics' concerns and implications it may have for the genetic counseling profession. Considering the increasing relevance of genetics in healthcare, the complexity of genetic information provided by DTC GT, the mediating role of the internet in counseling, and potential conflicts of interest, this is a topic which deserves further attention. In this paper we offer a discourse analysis of ways in which genetic counseling is represented on DTC GT websites, blogs and other online material. This analysis identified four types of genetic counseling represented on the websites: the integrated counseling product; discretionary counseling; independent counseling; and product advice. Genetic counselors are represented as having the following roles: genetics educator; mediator; lifestyle advisor; risk interpreter; and entrepreneur. We conclude that genetic counseling as represented on DTC GT websites demonstrates shifting professional roles and forms of expertise in genetic counseling. Genetic counselors are also playing an important part in how the genetic testing market is taking shape. Our analysis offers important and timely insights into recent developments in the genetic counseling profession, which have relevance for practitioners, researchers and policy makers concerned with the evolving field of personal genomics.

Direct-to-consumer personal genome testing and cancer risk prediction

The last several years has witnessed an explosion in genomics, with the advent of genome-wide association studies revealing hundreds of DNA variants significantly associated with most common diseases, including cancer. On the heels of these scientific advances came the direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing industry. Genome-wide scans for disease have been marketed and sold directly to the public, without the involvement of a health care provider. Unlike genetic testing for mutations in known hereditary cancer susceptibility genes such as BRCA1/2, these genomic profiles examine DNA variants, which typically have a minimal risk impact, and account for only a fraction of the heritable component of cancer. Furthermore, risk information provided to consumers does not account for family history or other known risk factors. The clinical validity and utility of personal genome scans for disease risk prediction remain for the most part unestablished, although some argue lack of evidence of harm and the possibility that positive impacts on health behaviors or genetic awareness may result from consumer use. The DTC genetic testing industry has sparked significant controversy not only among the scientific community, but also among professional societies and government agencies.In this review, we present some of the history and methodological considerations of DTC genomic profiling, with a focus on cancer risk prediction. The literature regarding consumer awareness and utilization is explored, including understanding, expectations, and behavioral and psychological responses to DTC genomic risk prediction. Primary care provider and genetic professional knowledge and perceptions of DTC genomic profiling are also addressed. Ethical and scientific controversy surrounding the DTC genetic testing industry is presented, along with policy recommendations, regulatory actions, and the changing landscape of the DTC genetic testing market in response. Although our understanding of the human genome holds much promise in the realm of cancer prevention and treatment, DTC genomic profiling for cancer risk prediction is unlikely in its current form to have any significant impact on the health of the public. Time will tell if the next venture in genomic medicine, whole genome sequencing, will be accompanied by the translational research and emphasis on public/provider education required to ensure its successful application toward reducing the burden of cancer at a population level.

Direct-to-consumer genomic testing from the perspective of the health professional: a systematic review of the literature

Since the 1990s, there has been a rapid expansion in the number and type of genetic tests available via health professionals; the last 10 years, however, have seen certain types of genetic and genomic tests available direct-to-consumer. The aim of this systematic review was to explore the topic of direct-to-consumer genetic testing from the health professional perspective. Search terms used to identify studies were 'direct-to-consumer', personal genom*, health* professional*, physician* 'genomic, genetic' in five bibliographic databases, together with citation searching. Eight quantitative papers were reviewed. Findings indicate a low level of awareness and experience of direct-to-consumer testing in health professionals. Inconsistent levels of knowledge and understanding were also found with two studies showing significant effects for gender and age. Concerns about clinical utility and lack of counselling were identified. Health professionals specialising in genetics were most likely to express concerns. There was also evidence of perceived increased workload for health professionals post-testing. However, some health professionals rated such tests clinically useful and cited benefits such as the increased opportunity for early screening. Despite limited awareness, knowledge and experience of actual cases, we concluded that the concerns and potential benefits expressed may be warranted. It may be useful to explore the attitudes and experiences of health professionals in more depth using a qualitative approach. Finally, it is essential that health professionals receive sufficient education and guidelines to equip them to help patients presenting with the results of these tests.

Attitudes of health care professionals toward carrier screening for cystic fibrosis. A review of the literature

Recent technological developments in molecular genetics facilitate the large-scale detection of inherited genetic disorders and allow an increasing number of genetic conditions to be screened for (American College of Medical Genetics 2012). This technological evolution creates the background which makes reflection necessary about the desirability to offer community-based (preconception) carrier screening in the healthcare system. A positive attitude of potential providers is vital to the success of a screening program. Therefore, the objective of this article is to elaborate a review of the attitudes of healthcare professionals toward carrier screening. Examination of existing carrier screening programs could provide such information. The literature review will be focused on the attitudes toward carrier screening for cystic fibrosis (CF). The databases Pubmed and Web of Science, as well as the interface Google Scholar, were searched using the keywords for the period 1990-2011. Studies were selected if they were published in a peer-reviewed journal in English and described the attitudes of potential providers toward carrier screening. Eleven studies were retrieved describing the attitudes toward carrier screening for CF. In total, seven studies reported attitudes toward the best time for carrier screening; four studies described opinions toward the best setting to offer CF carrier screening; six studies investigated the willingness to be involved in a carrier screening program, and in total 11 articles reported the concerns about offering carrier screening. Ten papers described a general attitude toward carrier screening. We can conclude that health care providers state willingness to be involved in a carrier screening program, but there is need for appropriate education as well as adequate support given the time constraints already present in consultation. The prospect of an increasing number of genetic disorders for which screening becomes possible, and the potential increasing demand for such screening in the future calls for the need for further debate on the desirability of carrier screening and relevant questions such as the conditions screened, the providers involved, the information provision, and counseling.

Genetic counseling and the ethical issues around direct to consumer genetic testing

Over the last several years, direct to consumer(DTC) genetic testing has received increasing attention in the public, healthcare and academic realms. DTC genetic testing companies face considerable criticism and scepticism,particularly from the medical and genetic counseling community. This raises the question of what specific aspects of DTC genetic testing provoke concerns, and conversely,promises, for genetic counselors. This paper addresses this question by exploring DTC genetic testing through an ethic allens. By considering the fundamental ethical approaches influencing genetic counseling (the ethic of care and principle-based ethics) we highlight the specific ethical concerns raised by DTC genetic testing companies. Ultimately,when considering the ethics of DTC testing in a genetic counseling context, we should think of it as a balancing act. We need careful and detailed consideration of the risks and troubling aspects of such testing, as well as the potentially beneficial direct and indirect impacts of the increased availability of DTC genetic testing. As a result it is essential that genetic counselors stay informed and involved in the ongoing debate about DTC genetic testing and DTC companies. Doing so will ensure that the ethical theories and principles fundamental to the profession of genetic counseling are promoted not just in traditional counseling sessions,but also on a broader level. Ultimately this will help ensure that the public enjoys the benefits of an increasingly genetic based healthcare system.

Increasing Public Awareness of Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Tests: Health Care Access, Internet Use, and Population Density Correlates

Uncertainty around the value of and appropriate regulatory models for direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing underscores the importance of tracking public awareness of these services. We analyzed nationally representative, cross-sectional data from the Health Information National Trends Survey in 2008 (n = 7, 674) and 2011 (n = 3, 959) to assess population-level changes in awareness of DTC genetic testing in the U.S. and to explore sociodemographic, health care, Internet use, and population density correlates. Overall, awareness increased significantly from 29% in 2008 to 37% in 2011. The observed increase in awareness from 2008 to 2011 remained significant (OR = 1.39) even when adjusted for sociodemographic variables, health care access, Internet use, and population density. Independent of survey year, the odds of awareness of DTC genetic tests were significantly higher for those aged 50-64 (OR = 1.64), and 65-74 (OR = 1.60); college graduates (OR = 2.02); those with a regular source of health care (OR = 1.27); those with a prior cancer diagnosis (OR = 1.24); those who use the Internet (OR = 1.27); and those living in urban areas (OR = 1.25). Surveillance of awareness-along with empirical data on use of and response to genetic risk information-can inform public health and policy efforts to maximize benefits and minimize risks of DTC genetic testing.

Genetic testing integration panels (GTIPs): a novel approach for considering integration of direct-to-consumer and other new genetic tests into patient care

There has been a dramatic increase in the number of genetic tests available but few tests have practice guidelines. In addition, many tests have become available outside of clinical settings through direct-to-consumer (DTC) companies and several offer tests not considered standard of care. To address several practical challenges associated with the rapid introduction of clinical and DTC genetic tests, we propose that genetic counselors and geneticists organize expert panels in their institutions to discuss the integration of new tests into patient care. We propose the establishment of Genetic Testing Integration Panels (GTIPs) to bring together local experts in medical genetics, genetic counseling, bioethics and law, health communication and clinical laboratory genetics. We describe key features of this approach and consider some of the potential advantages and limitations of using a GTIP to address the many clinical challenges raised by rapidly emerging clinical and DTC genetic tests.

An exploration of genetic health professionals' experience with direct-to-consumer genetic testing in their clinical practice

Direct-to-consumer genetic testing (DTC-GT) allows individuals to obtain genetic tests directly from companies without necessarily involving health professionals. This study explores genetic health professionals' opinions of health-related DTC-GT and the reported frequency of individuals presenting to clinical genetics services after undertaking testing. Genetic counsellors and clinical geneticists, members of the Human Genetics Society of Australasia, completed an online survey in mid 2011. The 130 genetic counsellors (estimated response fraction=43%) and 38 clinical geneticists (estimated response fraction=46%) had mixed opinions regarding DTC-GT, with only 7% confident in accurately interpreting and explaining DTC-GT results. Nineteen respondents (11%) reported one or more client(s) referred to them after undertaking DTC-GT. Descriptions of 25 clients were extracted from responses, and respondents reported that all clients were concerned for the health of either themselves or family members. Most clients presented to genetic clinics specifically as a result of their DTC-GT (96%) and were self or GP referred (92%). Respondents perceived that their clients typically undertook DTC-GT because they wanted to identify monogenic conditions, including carrier testing and/or know their susceptibility or predisposition for complex conditions (88%). The majority of clients needed help interpreting DTC-GT results (80%), however in general were not questioning the validity of their DTC-GT results (92%) nor seeking further genetic testing (84%). Currently, DTC-GT is not a major reason for referral to clinical genetics services in Australia and New Zealand and the majority of genetic health professionals lack confidence in being able to accurately interpret and explain DTC-GT results.

Communication about DTC testing: commentary on a 'family experience of personal genomics'

This paper provides a commentary on 'Family Experience of Personal Genomics' (Corpas 2012). An overview is offered on the communication literature available to help support individuals and families to communicate about genetic information. Despite there being a wealth of evidence, built on years of genetic counseling practice, this does not appear to have been translated clearly to the Direct to Consumer (DTC) testing market. In many countries it is possible to order a DTC genetic test without the involvement of any health professional; there has been heated debate about whether this is appropriate or not. Much of the focus surrounding this has been on whether it is necessary to have a health professional available to offer their clinical knowledge and help with interpreting the DTC genetic test data. What has been missed from this debate is the importance of enabling customers of DTC testing services access to the abundance of information about how to communicate their genetic risks to others, including immediate family. Family communication about health and indeed genetics can be fraught with difficulty. Genetic health professionals, specifically genetic counselors, have particular expertise in family communication about genetics. Such information could be incredibly useful to kinships as they grapple with knowing how to communicate their genomic information with relatives.

Health care providers and direct-to-consumer access and advertising of genetic testing in the United States

Marketing pressures, regulatory policies, clinical guidelines, and consumer demand all affect health care providers' knowledge and use of health-related genetic tests that are sold and/or advertised to consumers. In addition, clinical guidelines, regulatory policies, and educational efforts are needed to promote the informed use of genetic tests that are sold and advertised to consumers and health care providers. A shift in culture regarding the regulation of genetic tests that are sold directly to consumers is suggested: by recent actions taken by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), including letters sent to direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing companies stating that their tests meet the definition of medical devices; by public meetings held by the FDA to discuss laboratory developed tests; and by the convening of the Molecular and Clinical Genetics Panel to gather input on scientific issues concerning DTC genetic tests that make medical claims. This review provides a brief overview of DTC advertising and the regulation of pharmaceuticals and genetic tests in the United States. It highlights recent changes in the regulatory culture regarding genetic tests that are sold to consumers, and discusses the impact on health care providers of selling and advertising genetic tests directly to consumers.

"It's not like judgment day": public understanding of and reactions to personalized genomic risk information

The value of genomic risk assessment depends upon patients making appropriate behavioral changes in response to increased risk leading to disease prevention and early detection. To date, few studies have investigated consumers' response to personalized genomic disease risk information. To address this gap, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 60 adults participating in the Coriell Personalized Medicine Collaborative. The interviews took place after receiving results providing genomic and other risk information for up to eight common complex diseases. We found that participants were most likely to recall results which conferred an increased risk or those of particular personal interest. Participants understood the multi-factorial nature of common complex disease, and generally did not have negative emotional responses or overly deterministic perceptions of their results. Although most participants expressed a desire to use results to improve their health, a minority had actually taken action (behavior change or shared results with their doctor) at the time of the interview. These results suggest that participants have a reasonable understanding of genomic risk information and that provision of genomic risk information may motivate behavior change in some individuals; however additional work is needed to better understand the lack of change seen in the majority of participants.