7
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      From Expectations to Experiences: Consumer Autonomy and Choice in Personal Genomic Testing

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background: Personal genomic testing (PGT) offers individuals genetic information about relationships, wellness, sporting ability, and health. PGT is increasingly accessible online, including in emerging markets such as Australia. Little is known about what consumers expect from these tests and whether their reflections on testing resonate with bioethics concepts such as autonomy.

          Methods: We report findings from focus groups and semi-structured interviews that explored attitudes to and experiences of PGT. Focus group participants had little experience with PGT, while interview participants had undergone testing. Recordings were transcribed and analyzed using thematic analysis. Findings were critically interpreted with reference to bioethics scholarship on autonomy.

          Results: Fifty-six members of the public participated in seven focus groups, and 40 individuals were interviewed separately. Both groups valued the choice of PGT, and believed that it could motivate relevant actions. Focus group themes centered on the perceived value of choices, knowledge enabling action and knowledge about the self. Interview themes suggest that participants reflexively engage with their PGT information to make meaning, and that some appreciate its shortcomings. Critical interpretation of findings shows that while consumers of PGT are able to exercise a degree of autonomy in choosing, they may not be able to achieve a substantive conceptualization of autonomy, one that promotes alignment with higher-order desires.

          Conclusions: PGT consumers can critically reason about testing. However, they may uncritically accept test results, may not appreciate drawbacks of increased choice, or may overestimate the potential for information to motivate behavioral change. While consumers appear to be capable of substantive autonomy, they do so without ongoing support from companies. PGT companies promote a problematic (“default”) account of autonomy, reliant on empowerment rhetoric. This leaves consumers vulnerable to making decisions inconsistent with their higher-order desires. As PGT expands, claims about its power and value need to be carefully drawn.

          Related collections

          Most cited references49

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          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.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            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.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Direct-to-Consumer Testing 2.0: Emerging Models of Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing

              Direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing emerged in the early 2000s as a means of allowing consumers to access information on their genetics without the involvement of a physician. Although early models of DTC were popular with consumers, they were controversial in medical and regulatory circles. In this article, we trace the history of DTC genetic testing, discuss its regulatory implications, and describe the emergence of a new hybrid model we call DTC 2.0.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                AJOB Empir Bioeth
                AJOB Empir Bioeth
                UABR
                uabr21
                Ajob Empirical Bioethics
                Taylor & Francis
                2329-4515
                2329-4523
                2020
                30 December 2019
                : 11
                : 1
                : 63-76
                Affiliations
                [a ]Faculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney School of Public Health, Sydney Health Ethics, The University of Sydney , Sydney, NSW, Australia;
                [b ]School of Medicine, Faculty of Health, Deakin University , Victoria, Australia;
                [c ]Genetics Education and Health Research, Murdoch Children’s Research Institute , Victoria, Australia;
                [d ]Department of Paediatrics, University of Melbourne , Melbourne, Victoria, Australia;
                [e ]Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research , Victoria, Australia;
                [f ]Society and Ethics Research, Wellcome Genome Campus Society and Ethics Research Group, Hinxton , Cambridge, United Kingdom;
                [g ]Faculty of Education, University of Cambridge , Cambridge, United Kingdom
                Author notes

                Supplemental data for this article can be accessed at publisher’s website.

                CONTACT Ainsley Newson ainsley.newson@ 123456sydney.edu.au Sydney Health Ethics, The University of Sydney , Level 1, Medical Foundation Building K25, 92-94 Parramatta Road, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia.
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7965-6103
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6909-0970
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5714-5716
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0160-4159
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3103-8098
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3460-772X
                Article
                1701583
                10.1080/23294515.2019.1701583
                7048070
                31885332
                0db535e4-5a42-4d46-b049-e54800b10da1
                © 2019 The Author(s). Published with license by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                Page count
                Figures: 0, Tables: 1, Pages: 14, Words: 10480
                Funding
                Funded by: Australian Research Council 10.13039/501100000923
                Award ID: DP150100597
                Funded by: Wellcome Trust 10.13039/100004440
                Award ID: 206194
                Funded by: Garvan Institute of Medical Research 10.13039/501100003355
                Funded by: Sydney Medical School 10.13039/501100004365
                This work was supported by the Australian Research Council under Discovery Project (DP150100597); the Victorian Government Operational Infrastructure support program, the Wellcome Trust under Grant (206194); the Garvan Institute of Medical Research; Sydney Medical School and the University of Sydney’s Network on Bodies, Organs and Tissues.
                Categories
                Articles

                personal genomics,personal autonomy,direct-to-consumer testing,genetic testing,qualitative research,bioethics

                Comments

                Comment on this article