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

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.

[1]  P. Borry,et al.  DTC Genetic Services: A Look Across the Pond , 2008, The American journal of bioethics : AJOB.

[2]  T. Marteau,et al.  The impact of communicating genetic risks of disease on risk-reducing health behaviour: systematic review with meta-analysis , 2016, British Medical Journal.

[3]  Andreas D. Baxevanis,et al.  Characteristics of users of online personalized genomic risk assessments: Implications for physician-patient interactions , 2009, Genetics in Medicine.

[4]  M. McGowan,et al.  Using Lessons Learned From BRCA Testing and Marketing: What Lies Ahead for Whole Genome Scanning Services , 2008, The American journal of bioethics : AJOB.

[5]  M. Zeegers,et al.  Behavioural changes, sharing behaviour and psychological responses after receiving direct-to-consumer genetic test results: a systematic review and meta-analysis , 2017, Journal of Community Genetics.

[6]  I. Kerridge,et al.  Australians' knowledge and perceptions of direct‐to‐consumer personal genome testing , 2014, Internal medicine journal.

[7]  Matthew J. Ferber,et al.  Direct‐to‐Consumer Testing 2.0: Emerging Models of Direct‐to‐Consumer Genetic Testing , 2018, Mayo Clinic proceedings.

[8]  M. Loi Direct to consumer genetic testing and the libertarian right to test , 2016, Journal of Medical Ethics.

[9]  Yvette E. Pearson,et al.  Direct-to-Consumer Marketing of Predictive Medical Genetic Tests: Assessment of Current Practices and Policy Recommendations , 2008 .

[10]  Gordon Graham,et al.  The Morality of Freedom. , 1987 .

[11]  L. Beckman Are Genetic Self-Tests Dangerous? Assessing the Commercialization of Genetic Testing in Terms of Personal Autonomy , 2004, Theoretical medicine and bioethics.

[12]  P. Borry,et al.  Survey of European clinical geneticists on awareness, experiences and attitudes towards direct-to-consumer genetic testing , 2013, Genome Medicine.

[13]  M. Schermer,et al.  Informed Consent in Direct‐To‐Consumer Personal Genome Testing: The Outline of a Model between Specific and Generic Consent , 2014, Bioethics.

[14]  Pascal Borry,et al.  Where are you going, where have you been: a recent history of the direct-to-consumer genetic testing market , 2010, Journal of Community Genetics.

[15]  W. Hall,et al.  Direct-to-Consumer Genome-Wide Scans: Astrologicogenomics or Simple Scams? , 2009, The American journal of bioethics : AJOB.

[16]  W. Burke Making Sense of the Genome Remains a Work in Progress. , 2018, JAMA.

[17]  Elisabetta Ceretti,et al.  Internet-Based Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing: A Systematic Review , 2015, Journal of medical Internet research.

[18]  K. Helzlsouer,et al.  Primary care patients’ views and decisions about, experience of and reactions to direct-to-consumer genetic testing: a longitudinal study , 2013, Journal of Community Genetics.

[19]  A. Newson,et al.  Reconceptualizing Autonomy for Bioethics , 2018, Kennedy Institute of Ethics journal.

[20]  J. Hart [Qualitative methods]. , 2000, Recherche en soins infirmiers.

[21]  J R Gordon,et al.  What's at stake. , 1989, CPJ : Canadian pharmaceutical journal = RPC : la revue pharmaceutique canadienne.

[22]  P. Auer,et al.  All your data (effectively) belong to us: data practices among direct-to-consumer genetic testing firms , 2016, Genetics in Medicine.

[23]  B. Prainsack,et al.  Beyond individualism: Is there a place for relational autonomy in clinical practice and research? , 2017, Clinical ethics.

[24]  S. Schicktanz,et al.  “I would rather have it done by a doctor”—laypeople’s perceptions of direct-to-consumer genetic testing (DTC GT) and its ethical implications , 2019, Medicine, health care, and philosophy.

[25]  G. Pravettoni,et al.  Living at Risk: Factors That Affect the Experience of Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing. , 2015, Mayo Clinic proceedings.

[26]  E. Bunnik Do genomic tests enhance autonomy? , 2014, Journal of Medical Ethics.

[27]  Richard A. Krueger,et al.  Focus groups : a practical guide for applied research / by Richard A. Krueger , 1989 .

[28]  Stephanie M Fullerton,et al.  Third-Party Genetic Interpretation Tools: A Mixed-Methods Study of Consumer Motivation and Behavior. , 2019, American journal of human genetics.

[29]  E. Vayena Direct-to-consumer genomics on the scales of autonomy , 2014, Journal of Medical Ethics.

[30]  Neil C. Manson,et al.  Rethinking Informed Consent in Bioethics: Bibliography , 2007 .

[31]  E. Kowal,et al.  What’s at stake? Determining indigeneity in the era of DIY DNA , 2019, New Genetics and Society.

[32]  A. Middleton,et al.  Genetics in the 21st Century: Implications for patients, consumers and citizens , 2018, F1000Research.

[33]  E. Hildt Predictive Genetic Testing, Autonomy and Responsibility for Future Health , 2009 .

[34]  Australians’ views and experience of personal genomic testing: survey findings from the Genioz study , 2019, European Journal of Human Genetics.

[35]  Heather Skirton,et al.  Direct-to-consumer genomic testing: systematic review of the literature on user perspectives , 2012, European Journal of Human Genetics.

[36]  Rose Williams The social life of DNA: race, reparations, and reconciliation after the genome , 2016 .

[37]  C. Critchley,et al.  Public reaction to direct-to-consumer online genetic tests: Comparing attitudes, trust and intentions across commercial and conventional providers , 2015, Public understanding of science.

[38]  Judith Green,et al.  Qualitative methods for health research , 2004 .

[39]  Pascal Borry,et al.  Users’ motivations to purchase direct-to-consumer genome-wide testing: an exploratory study of personal stories , 2011, Journal of Community Genetics.

[40]  S. Metcalfe,et al.  Personal genomic testing for nutrition and wellness in Australia: A content analysis of online information. , 2019, Nutrition & dietetics: the journal of the Dietitians Association of Australia.

[41]  Sofia Kjellström,et al.  Values at stake: autonomy, responsibility, and trustworthiness in relation to genetic testing and personalized nutrition advice , 2013, Genes & Nutrition.

[42]  K. Gray,et al.  Australians’ views on personal genomic testing: focus group findings from the Genioz study , 2018, European Journal of Human Genetics.

[43]  A. Janssens,et al.  Personal utility in genomic testing: is there such a thing? , 2014, Journal of Medical Ethics.

[44]  Mauro Turrini,et al.  Beyond clinical utility: The multiple values of DTC genetics , 2016, Applied & translational genomics.

[45]  N. Juth Genetic Information - Values and Rights: The Morality of Presymptomatic Genetic Testing , 2012 .

[46]  Michelle L. McGowan,et al.  Personal genomics and individual identities: motivations and moral imperatives of early users , 2010, New genetics and society.

[47]  Anders Nordgren Neither as harmful as feared by critics nor as empowering as promised by providers: risk information offered direct to consumer by personal genomics companies , 2012, Journal of Community Genetics.

[48]  A. Middleton,et al.  Direct-to-consumer genetic testing: where and how does genetic counseling fit? , 2017, Personalized medicine.

[49]  K. Gray,et al.  Australians' perspectives on support around use of personal genomic testing: Findings from the Genioz study. , 2019, European journal of medical genetics.

[50]  Medicine, market and communication: ethical considerations in regard to persuasive communication in direct-to-consumer genetic testing services , 2018, BMC medical ethics.

[51]  James J. Cummings,et al.  Consumer use and response to online third‐party raw DNA interpretation services , 2017, Molecular genetics & genomic medicine.

[52]  N. Gerry,et al.  Coriell Personalized Medicine Collaborative®: a prospective study of the utility of personalized medicine. , 2010, Personalized medicine.

[53]  Pascal Borry,et al.  Third party interpretation of raw genetic data: an ethical exploration , 2017, European Journal of Human Genetics.

[54]  Brendan Seward Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing: Finding a Clear Path Forward , 2018, Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science.

[55]  J. Roberts,et al.  Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing and Personal Genomics Services: A Review of Recent Empirical Studies , 2013, Current Genetic Medicine Reports.

[56]  H. Feigelson,et al.  Perception of Direct-To-Consumer Genetic Testing and Direct-To-Consumer Advertising of Genetic Tests among Members of a Large Managed Care Organization , 2012, Journal of Genetic Counseling.

[57]  E. Juengst,et al.  Personalized genomic medicine and the rhetoric of empowerment. , 2012, The Hastings Center report.

[58]  P. Mitchell,et al.  Public interest in predictive genetic testing, including direct-to-consumer testing, for susceptibility to major depression: preliminary findings , 2010, European Journal of Human Genetics.

[59]  C. Adebamowo,et al.  Knowledge and attitudes to personal genomics testing for complex diseases among Nigerians , 2014, BMC medical ethics.