Characteristics of users of online personalized genomic risk assessments: Implications for physician-patient interactions

Purpose: To evaluate what psychological and behavioral factors predict who is likely to seek SNP-based genetic tests for multiple common health conditions where feedback can be used to motivate primary prevention.Methods: Adults aged 25–40 years who were enrolled in a large managed care organization were surveyed. Those eligible could log on to a secure study Web site to review information about the risks and benefits of a SNP-based genetic test and request free testing. Two primary outcomes are addressed: accessing the Web (yes or no) and deciding to be tested (completed a blood draw at the clinic)Results: Those considering genetic susceptibility testing did not hold genetically deterministic beliefs (0.42 on scale of 0 [behavior] to 1 [genetic]) but believed genetic information to be valuable and were confident they could understand such information. Individuals who believed it important to learn about genetics (odds ratio = 1.28), were confident they could understand genetics (odds ratio = 1.26), and reported the most health habits to change (odds ratio = 1.39) were most likely to get tested.Conclusions: Individuals who present to health care providers with online genetics information may be among the most motivated to take steps toward healthier lifestyles. These motives might be leveraged by health care providers to promote positive health outcomes.

[1]  D. Bowen,et al.  Predictors of Self-Referral into a Cancer Genetics Registry , 2007, Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention.

[2]  G. Javitt,et al.  A Case Study of Personalized Medicine , 2008, Science.

[3]  M. Khoury,et al.  Genomic profiling to promote a healthy lifestyle: not ready for prime time , 2003, Nature Genetics.

[4]  Francis S Collins,et al.  The genome gets personal--almost. , 2008, JAMA.

[5]  R. Parrott,et al.  Diversity in lay perceptions of the sources of human traits: genes, environments, and personal behaviors. , 2003, Social science & medicine.

[6]  S. Clark,et al.  Parents' concern about their own and their children's genetic disease risk: potential effects of family history vs genetic test results. , 2008, Archives of pediatrics & adolescent medicine.

[7]  S. Dunwoody,et al.  Proposed model of the relationship of risk information seeking and processing to the development of preventive behaviors. , 1999, Environmental research.

[8]  Muin J. Khoury,et al.  Letting the genome out of the bottle--will we get our wish? , 2008, The New England journal of medicine.

[9]  G. Bepler,et al.  The feasibility of online genetic testing for lung cancer susceptibility: uptake of a web-based protocol and decision outcomes , 2008, Genetics in Medicine.

[10]  Colleen M McBride,et al.  Incorporating genetic susceptibility feedback into a smoking cessation program for African-American smokers with low income. , 2002, Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology.

[11]  W. Burke,et al.  Potential for genetics to promote public health: genetics research on smoking suggests caution about expectations. , 2006, JAMA.

[12]  JAY M. BERNHARDT,et al.  Online Health Communication about Human Genetics: Perceptions and Preferences of Internet Users , 2004, Cyberpsychology Behav. Soc. Netw..

[13]  L. Grothaus,et al.  Use and cost effectiveness of smoking-cessation services under four insurance plans in a health maintenance organization. , 1998, The New England journal of medicine.

[14]  M. Putt,et al.  Racial differences in the use of BRCA1/2 testing among women with a family history of breast or ovarian cancer. , 2005, JAMA.

[15]  I. Lipkus,et al.  Relationships among breast cancer concern, risk perceptions, and interest in genetic testing for breast cancer susceptibility among African-American women with and without a family history of breast cancer. , 1999, Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology.

[16]  Amy L. McGuire,et al.  An unwelcome side effect of direct-to-consumer personal genome testing: raiding the medical commons. , 2008, JAMA.

[17]  E. Lander,et al.  Meta-analysis of genetic association studies supports a contribution of common variants to susceptibility to common disease , 2003, Nature Genetics.

[18]  S. Syme,et al.  Promoting Health: Intervention Strategies from Social and Behavioral Research , 2001 .

[19]  Munir Pirmohamed,et al.  Personalized medicine: decades away? , 2006, Pharmacogenomics.

[20]  Yang Wang,et al.  Diet and cancer prevention: evidence-based medicine to genomic medicine. , 2004, The Journal of nutrition.

[21]  Robert C Green,et al.  Genetic Risk Assessment for Adult Children of People With Alzheimer’s Disease: The Risk Evaluation and Education for Alzheimer’s Disease (REVEAL) Study , 2005, Journal of geriatric psychiatry and neurology.

[22]  B. Biesecker,et al.  Education about genetic testing for breast cancer susceptibility: patient preferences for a computer program or genetic counselor. , 2001, American journal of medical genetics.

[23]  Siamak Noorbaloochi,et al.  Validation of Screening Questions for Limited Health Literacy in a Large VA Outpatient Population , 2008, Journal of General Internal Medicine.

[24]  J. Bell.  Predicting disease using genomics , 2004, Nature.

[25]  C. Dube,et al.  Untangling the Web--the impact of Internet use on health care and the physician-patient relationship. , 2007, Patient education and counseling.

[26]  Daniel P. Lorence,et al.  Group disparities and health information: a study of online access for the underserved , 2008, Health Informatics J..

[27]  S. Syme,et al.  Behavioral and Social Science Contributions to the Health of Adults in the United States , 2000 .