Impact of direct-to-consumer predictive genomic testing on risk perception and worry among patients receiving routine care in a preventive health clinic.

OBJECTIVE To assess the impact of direct-to-consumer (DTC) predictive genomic risk information on perceived risk and worry in the context of routine clinical care. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients attending a preventive medicine clinic between June 1 and December 18, 2009, were randomly assigned to receive either genomic risk information from a DTC product plus usual care (n=74) or usual care alone (n=76). At intervals of 1 week and 1 year after their clinic visit, participants completed surveys containing validated measures of risk perception and levels of worry associated with the 12 conditions assessed by the DTC product. RESULTS Of 345 patients approached, 150 (43%) agreed to participate, 64 (19%) refused, and 131 (38%) did not respond. Compared with those receiving usual care, participants who received genomic risk information initially rated their risk as higher for 4 conditions (abdominal aneurysm [P=.001], Graves disease [P=.04], obesity [P=.01], and osteoarthritis [P=.04]) and lower for one (prostate cancer [P=.02]). Although differences were not significant, they also reported higher levels of worry for 7 conditions and lower levels for 5 others. At 1 year, there were no significant differences between groups. CONCLUSION Predictive genomic risk information modestly influences risk perception and worry. The extent and direction of this influence may depend on the condition being tested and its baseline prominence in preventive health care and may attenuate with time.

[1]  Charis Eng,et al.  Bioethical and Clinical Dilemmas of Direct-to-Consumer Personal Genomic Testing: The Problem of Misattributed Equivalence , 2010, Science Translational Medicine.

[2]  Victor J. Strecher,et al.  The health belief model and health behavior. , 1997 .

[3]  H. Bruyèrè,et al.  CCMG statement on direct‐to‐consumer genetic testing * , 2012, Clinical genetics.

[4]  Peter M Visscher,et al.  Prediction of individual genetic risk to disease from genome-wide association studies. , 2007, Genome research.

[5]  F. Collins,et al.  The path to personalized medicine. , 2010, The New England journal of medicine.

[6]  E. Leventhal,et al.  Self-regulation, health, and behavior: A perceptual-cognitive approach , 1998 .

[7]  K. Glanz,et al.  Health Behavior and Health Education , 1990 .

[8]  N. Schork,et al.  Effect of direct-to-consumer genomewide profiling to assess disease risk. , 2011, The New England journal of medicine.

[9]  M. W. Foster,et al.  Out of sequence: how consumer genomics could displace clinical genetics , 2008, Nature Reviews Genetics.

[10]  C. Jordens,et al.  Direct‐to‐consumer personal genome testing: ethical and regulatory issues that arise from wanting to ‘know’ your DNA , 2010, Internal medicine journal.

[11]  Nancy R Cook,et al.  Cardiovascular Disease Risk Prediction With and Without Knowledge of Genetic Variation at Chromosome 9p21.3 , 2009, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[12]  R. Lifton Individual genomes on the horizon. , 2010, The New England journal of medicine.

[13]  K. Offit Genomic profiles for disease risk: predictive or premature? , 2008, JAMA.

[14]  T. Marteau,et al.  Genetic risk and behavioural change , 2001, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[15]  R. Klein,et al.  Recommendations from the EGAPP Working Group: Genomic profiling to assess cardiovascular risk to improve cardiovascular health , 2010, Genetics in Medicine.

[16]  Euan A Ashley,et al.  Challenges in the clinical application of whole-genome sequencing , 2010, The Lancet.

[17]  Laura Bonetta,et al.  Whole-Genome Sequencing Breaks the Cost Barrier , 2010, Cell.

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

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

[20]  Peter M Visscher,et al.  Genome-wide association studies and human disease: from trickle to flood. , 2009, JAMA.

[21]  Gail Javitt,et al.  ASHG Statement* on Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing in the United States , 2007, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[22]  American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics’ Board of Directors ACMG Statement on Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing , 2004, Genetics in Medicine.

[23]  B. Kuehn Risks and benefits of direct-to-consumer genetic testing remain unclear. , 2008, JAMA.

[24]  P. Harris,et al.  Research electronic data capture (REDCap) - A metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support , 2009, J. Biomed. Informatics.

[25]  Tao Wang,et al.  Social Networkers' Attitudes Toward Direct-to-Consumer Personal Genome Testing , 2009, The American journal of bioethics : AJOB.

[26]  Muin J Khoury,et al.  A critical appraisal of the scientific basis of commercial genomic profiles used to assess health risks and personalize health interventions. , 2008, American journal of human genetics.

[27]  J. Witte,et al.  The Scientific Foundation for Personal Genomics: Recommendations from a National Institutes of Health–Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Multidisciplinary Workshop , 2009, Genetics in Medicine.

[28]  C. Carver,et al.  Themes and issues in the self-regulation of behavior. , 1999 .

[29]  B. Rimer,et al.  Cancer risk notification: psychosocial and ethical implications. , 1991, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[30]  C. Skinner,et al.  The health belief model. , 2008 .