Consumer Perceptions of Interactions With Primary Care Providers After Direct-to-Consumer Personal Genomic Testing.

BACKGROUND Direct-to-consumer (DTC) personal genomic testing (PGT) allows individuals to learn about their genetic makeup without going through a physician, but some consumers share their results with their primary care provider (PCP). OBJECTIVE To describe the characteristics and perceptions of DTC PGT consumers who discuss their results with their PCP. DESIGN Longitudinal, prospective cohort study. SETTING Online survey before and 6 months after results. PARTICIPANTS DTC PGT consumers. MEASUREMENTS Consumer satisfaction with the DTC PGT experience; whether and, if so, how many results could be used to improve health; how many results were not understood; and beliefs about the PCP's understanding of genetics. Participants were asked with whom they had discussed their results. Genetic reports were linked to survey responses. RESULTS Among 1026 respondents, 63% planned to share their results with a PCP. At 6-month follow-up, 27% reported having done so, and 8% reported sharing with another health care provider only. Common reasons for not sharing results with a health care provider were that the results were not important enough (40%) or that the participant did not have time to do so (37%). Among participants who discussed results with their PCP, 35% were very satisfied with the encounter, and 18% were not at all satisfied. Frequently identified themes in participant descriptions of these encounters were actionability of the results or use in care (32%), PCP engagement or interest (25%), and lack of PCP engagement or interest (22%). LIMITATION Participants may not be representative of all DTC PGT consumers. CONCLUSION A comprehensive picture of DTC PGT consumers who shared their results with a health care provider is presented. The proportion that shares results is expected to increase with time after testing as consumers find opportunities for discussion at later appointments or if results become relevant as medical needs evolve. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE National Institutes of Health.

[1]  Jon Emery,et al.  Genetics education for primary-care providers , 2002, Nature Reviews Genetics.

[2]  Barbara A Bernhardt,et al.  Incorporating direct-to-consumer genomic information into patient care: attitudes and experiences of primary care physicians. , 2012, Personalized medicine.

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

[4]  R. Green,et al.  Navigating a research partnership between academia and industry to assess the impact of personalized genetic testing , 2012, Genetics in Medicine.

[5]  J E Ware,et al.  Overview of the SF-36 Health Survey and the International Quality of Life Assessment (IQOLA) Project. , 1998, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[6]  W. Meschino,et al.  The Educational Needs and Professional Roles of Canadian Physicians and Nurses regarding Genetic Testing and Adult Onset Hereditary Disease , 2005, Public Health Genomics.

[7]  Cornelia M van Duijn,et al.  An epidemiological perspective on the future of direct-to-consumer personal genome testing , 2010, Investigative Genetics.

[8]  Gaurav Dave,et al.  Educational Needs of Primary Care Physicians Regarding Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing , 2012, Journal of Genetic Counseling.

[9]  R. Green,et al.  The future of direct-to-consumer clinical genetic tests , 2011, Nature Reviews Genetics.

[10]  D. Samadi,et al.  Are men shortchanged on health? Perspective on health care utilization and health risk behavior in men and women in the United States , 2009, International journal of clinical practice.

[11]  Felix W Frueh,et al.  From pharmacogenetics to personalized medicine: a vital need for educating health professionals and the community. , 2004, Pharmacogenomics.

[12]  W. G. Feero,et al.  Genetics of common disease: a primary care priority aligned with a teachable moment? , 2008, Genetics in Medicine.

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

[14]  A. Guttmacher,et al.  Science & society: Educating health-care professionals about genetics and genomics , 2007, Nature Reviews Genetics.

[15]  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.

[16]  Cees van der Vleuten,et al.  Genetic educational needs and the role of genetics in primary care: a focus group study with multiple perspectives , 2011, BMC family practice.

[17]  R. Green,et al.  Direct to consumer genetic testing: Avoiding a culture war , 2009, Genetics in Medicine.

[18]  M. Boguski,et al.  Personal genotypes are teachable moments , 2013, Genome Medicine.

[19]  Robert A. Bell,et al.  Unmet expectations for care and the patient-physician relationship , 2002, Journal of General Internal Medicine.

[20]  E. Green,et al.  Genomics education for health care professionals in the 21st century. , 2011, JAMA.

[21]  Joan Scott,et al.  Risky Business: Risk Perception and the Use of Medical Services among Customers of DTC Personal Genetic Testing , 2012, Journal of Genetic Counseling.

[22]  B. Bernhardt,et al.  Motivations and Perceptions of Early Adopters of Personalized Genomics: Perspectives from Research Participants , 2011, Public Health Genomics.

[23]  Lidewij Henneman,et al.  Deficiency of knowledge of genetics and genetic tests among general practitioners, gynecologists, and pediatricians: A global problem , 2005, Genetics in Medicine.

[24]  Nita A. Farahany,et al.  Regulation: The FDA is overcautious on consumer genomics , 2014, Nature.

[25]  Does Direct-to-Consumer Marketing of Medical Technologies Undermine the Physician–Patient Relationship? , 2009, The American journal of bioethics : AJOB.

[26]  R. Green,et al.  Consumers report lower confidence in their genetics knowledge following direct-to-consumer personal genomic testing , 2015, Genetics in Medicine.

[27]  Mick P Couper,et al.  Design, methods, and participant characteristics of the Impact of Personal Genomics (PGen) Study, a prospective cohort study of direct-to-consumer personal genomic testing customers , 2014, Genome Medicine.

[28]  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.

[29]  P. Sloane,et al.  Physician-patient communication in the primary care office: a systematic review. , 2002, The Journal of the American Board of Family Practice.

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

[31]  Amy L McGuire,et al.  The need for medical education reform: genomics and the changing nature of health information , 2010, Genome Medicine.

[32]  R. Green,et al.  How Well Do Customers of Direct-to-Consumer Personal Genomic Testing Services Comprehend Genetic Test Results? Findings from the Impact of Personal Genomics Study , 2015, Public Health Genomics.

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

[34]  N. Schork,et al.  Characteristics of Genomic Test Consumers Who Spontaneously Share Results With Their Health Care Provider , 2014, Health communication.

[35]  K Kroenke,et al.  Predictors of patient satisfaction. , 2001, Social science & medicine.

[36]  J. Ware,et al.  Linking primary care performance to outcomes of care. , 1998, The Journal of family practice.

[37]  H. Skirton,et al.  Direct-to-consumer genomic testing from the perspective of the health professional: a systematic review of the literature , 2013, Journal of Community Genetics.

[38]  Gaurav Dave,et al.  Primary Care Physicians’ Awareness, Experience and Opinions of Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing , 2012, Journal of Genetic Counseling.