Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa
  • Access
  • Open access
  • Cited by 10
  • Cited by
    This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    Bishop, C.L Strong, K.A and Dimmock, D.P 2016. Choices of incidental findings of individuals undergoing genome wide sequencing, a single center's experience. Clinical Genetics,


    Bouchard-Mercier, Annie Desroches, Sophie Robitaille, Julie and Vohl, Marie-Claude 2016. Factors Associated with the Intention of Registered Dietitians to Discuss Nutrigenetics with their Patients/Clients. Canadian Journal of Dietetic Practice and Research, p. 1.


    Li, Sherly X. Ye, Zheng Whelan, Kevin and Truby, Helen 2016. The effect of communicating the genetic risk of cardiometabolic disorders on motivation and actual engagement in preventative lifestyle modification and clinical outcome: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. British Journal of Nutrition, p. 1.


    Covolo, Loredana Rubinelli, Sara Ceretti, Elisabetta and Gelatti, Umberto 2015. Internet-Based Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing: A Systematic Review. Journal of Medical Internet Research, Vol. 17, Issue. 12, p. e279.


    Mavroidopoulou, Vasiliki Xera, Ellie and Mollaki, Vasiliki 2015. Awareness, attitudes and perspectives of direct-to-consumer genetic testing in Greece: a survey of potential consumers. Journal of Human Genetics, Vol. 60, Issue. 9, p. 515.


    Rafiq, Muhammad Ianuale, Carolina Ricciardi, Walter and Boccia, Stefania 2015. Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing: A Systematic Review of European Guidelines, Recommendations, and Position Statements. Genetic Testing and Molecular Biomarkers, Vol. 19, Issue. 10, p. 535.


    Camp, Kathryn M. and Trujillo, Elaine 2014. Position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics: Nutritional Genomics. Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, Vol. 114, Issue. 2, p. 299.


    Hurlimann, T. Menuz, V. Graham, J. Robitaille, J. Vohl, M.-C. and Godard, B. 2014. Risks of nutrigenomics and nutrigenetics? What the scientists say. Genes & Nutrition, Vol. 9, Issue. 1,


    Steele, Fintan and Gold, Larry 2014. DTC-and-Me: Patient, Provider, Proteins and Regulators. Journal of Personalized Medicine, Vol. 4, Issue. 1, p. 79.


    Strong, K.A. Zusevics, K.L. Bick, D. and Veith, R. 2014. Views of primary care providers regarding the return of genome sequencing incidental findings. Clinical Genetics, Vol. 86, Issue. 5, p. 461.


    ×

State of play in direct-to-consumer genetic testing for lifestyle-related diseases: market, marketing content, user experiences and regulation

  • Paula Saukko (a1)
  • DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0029665112002960
  • Published online: 21 January 2013
Abstract

Direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic tests have aroused controversy. Critics have argued many of the tests are not backed by scientific evidence, misguide their customers and should be regulated more stringently. Proponents suggest that finding out genetic susceptibilities for diseases could encourage healthier behaviours and makes the results of genetics research available to the public. This paper reviews the state of play in DTC genetic testing, focusing on tests identifying susceptibilities for lifestyle-related diseases. It will start with mapping the market for the tests. The paper will review (1) research on the content of the online marketing of DTC tests, (2) studies on the effects of DTC genetic tests on customers and (3) academic and policy proposals on how to regulate the tests. Current studies suggest that the marketing of DTC genetic tests often exaggerates their predictive powers, which could misguide consumers. However, research indicates that the tests do not seem to have major negative effects (worry and confusion) but neither do they engender positive effects (lifestyle change) on current users. Research on regulation of the tests has most commonly suggested regulating the marketing claims of the companies. In conclusion, the risks and benefits of DTC genetic tests are less significant than what has been predicted by critics and proponents, which will be argued reflects broader historical trends transforming health and medicine.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      State of play in direct-to-consumer genetic testing for lifestyle-related diseases: market, marketing content, user experiences and regulation
      Your Kindle email address
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      State of play in direct-to-consumer genetic testing for lifestyle-related diseases: market, marketing content, user experiences and regulation
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      State of play in direct-to-consumer genetic testing for lifestyle-related diseases: market, marketing content, user experiences and regulation
      Available formats
      ×
Copyright
The online version of this article is published within an Open Access environment subject to the conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike licence <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/ > . The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use.
Corresponding author
Corresponding author: Dr Paula Saukko, fax +44 1509 223944, email P.Saukko@lboro.ac.uk
Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

6.CR Lachance , LA Erby , BM Ford (2010) Informational content, literacy demands, and usability of websites offering health-related genetic tests directly to consumers. Genet Med 12, 304312.

7.N Lewis , D Treise , SI Hsu (2011) DTC genetic testing companies fail transparency prescriptions. New Genet Soc 30, 291307.

8.A Singleton , LH Erby , KV Foisie (2012) Informed choice in direct-to-consumer genetic testing (DTCGT) websites: a content analysis of benefits, risks, and limitations. J Genet Couns 21, 433439.

12.PM Saukko , M Reed , N Britten (2010) Negotiating the boundary between medicine and consumer culture: online marketing of nutrigenetic tests. Soc Sci Med 70, 744753.

13.A Nordgren & ET Juengst (2009) Can genomics tell me who I am? Essentialist rhetoric in direct-to-consumer DNA testing. New Genet Soc 28, 157172.

15.SE Gollust , BS Wilfond & SC Hull (2003) Direct-to-consumer sales of genetic services on the internet. Genet Med 5, 332337.

19.CS Bloss , NJ Schork & EJ Topol (2011) Effect of direct-to-consumer genomewide profiling to assess disease risk. N Engl J Med 10, 364, 524534.

21.CM McBride , LM Koehly , SC Sanderson (2010) The behavioral response to personalized genetic information: will genetic risk profiles motivate individuals and families to choose more healthful behaviors? Annu Rev Public Health 31, 89103.

23.DE Nielsen & A El-Sohemy (2012) A randomized trial of genetic information for personalized nutrition. Genes Nutr 7, 559566.

25.FM Walter , J Emery , D Braithwaite (2004) Lay understanding of familial risk of common chronic diseases: a systematic review and synthesis of qualitative research. Ann Fam Med 2, 583594.

26.PM Saukko , SH Richards , MH Shepherd (2006) Are genetic tests exceptional? Lessons from a qualitative study on thrombophilia. Soc Sci Med 63, 19471959.

29.DJ Kaufman , JM Bollinger , RL Dvoskin (2012) Risky business: risk perception and the use of medical services among customers of DTC personal genetic testing. J Genet Couns 21, 413422.

30.CM McBride , CH Wade & KA Kaphingst (2010) Consumers' views of direct-to-consumer genetic information. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet 11, 427446.

31.ML McGowan , JR Fishman & MA Lambrix (2010) Personal genomics and individual identities: motivations and moral imperatives of early users. New Genet Soc 29, 261290.

32.Y Su , HC Howard & P Borry (2011) Users' motivations to purchase direct-to-consumer genome-wide testing: an exploratory study of personal stories. J Community Genet 2, 135146.

33.KA Goddard , D Duquette , A Zlot (2009) Public awareness and use of direct-to-consumer genetic tests: results from 3 state population-based surveys, 2006. Am J Public Health 99, 442445.

34.LF Cherkas , JM Harris , E Levinson (2010) A survey of UK public interest in internet-based personal genome testing. PLoS ONE 5, e13473.

35.KA Kaphingst , CM McBride , C Wade (2012) Patients' understanding of and responses to multiplex genetic susceptibility test results. Genet Med 14, 681687.

36.S Hogarth (2010) Myths, misconceptions and myopia: searching for clarity in the debate about the regulation of consumer genetics. Public Health Genomics 13, 322326.

40.F Becker , CG van El , D Ibarreta (2011) Genetic testing and common disorders in a public health framework: how to assess relevance and possibilities. Background Document to the ESHG recommendations on genetic testing and common disorders. Eur J Hum Genet 19, Suppl. 1, S6S44.

41.P Borry , RE van Hellemondt , D Sprumont (2012) Legislation on direct-to-consumer genetic testing in seven European countries. Eur J Hum Genet 20, 715721.

45.CF Wright , A Hall & RL Zimmern (2011) Regulating direct-to-consumer genetic tests: what is all the fuss about? Genet Med 13, 295300.

46.T Caulfield (2011) Direct-to-consumer testing: if consumers are not anxious, why are policymakers? Hum Genet 130, 2325.

51.B Prainsack , J Reardon , R Hindmarsh (2008) Personal genomes: misdirected precaution. Nature 456, 3435.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Proceedings of the Nutrition Society
  • ISSN: 0029-6651
  • EISSN: 1475-2719
  • URL: /core/journals/proceedings-of-the-nutrition-society
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords: