ArticleSocial science & medicine (1982)2010
Negotiating the boundary between medicine and consumer culture: online marketing of nutrigenetic tests.
Article in Social science & medicine (1982), 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
16 citing papers in PubMed.
- Characterizing Precision Nutrition Discourse on Twitter: Quantitative Content Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Article
- Weighing up the evidence used by direct-to-consumer stem cell businesses.Stem cell reports · 2021Article
- Genes and Diet in the Prevention of Chronic Diseases in Future Generations.International journal of molecular sciences · 2020Review
- Credibility Contests: Media Debates on Do-It-Yourself Coronavirus Responses and the Role of Citizens in Health Crises.Frontiers in sociology · 2020Article
- Marketing Experimental Stem Cell Therapies in the UK: Biomedical Lifestyle Products and the Promise of Regenerative Medicine in the Digital Era.Science as culture · 2020Article
- Direct to consumer genetic testing-law and policy concerns in Ireland.Irish journal of medical science · 2018Article
- Ethical issues in the development and implementation of nutrition-related public health policies and interventions: A scoping review.PloS one · 2017Article
- Proposed guidelines to evaluate scientific validity and evidence for genotype-based dietary advice.Genes & nutrition · 2017Review
- Consumer Health Informatics: Past, Present, and Future of a Rapidly Evolving Domain.Yearbook of medical informatics · 2016Review
- The lifestylisation of healthcare? 'Consumer genomics' and mobile health as technologies for healthy lifestyle.Applied & translational genomics · 2015Article
- DTC-and-Me: Patient, Provider, Proteins and Regulators.Journal of personalized medicine · 2014Article
- Nutrigenomics-based personalised nutritional advice: in search of a business model?Genes & nutrition · 2013Article
- State of play in direct-to-consumer genetic testing for lifestyle-related diseases: market, marketing content, user experiences and regulation.The Proceedings of the Nutrition Society · 2013Article
- How do medical device manufacturers' websites frame the value of health innovation? An empirical ethics analysis of five Canadian innovations.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2012Article
- Food as exposure: Nutritional epigenetics and the new metabolism.BioSocieties · 2011Article
- Personal genomics and individual identities: motivations and moral imperatives of early users.New genetics and society · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Genomics researchers and policy makers have accused nutrigenetic testing companies--which provide DNA-based nutritional advice online--of misleading the public. The UK and USA regulation of the tests has hinged on whether they are classed as "medical" devices, and alternative regulatory categories for "lifestyle" and less-serious genetic tests have been proposed. This article presents the findings of a qualitative thematic analysis of the webpages of nine nutrigenetic testing companies. We argue that the companies, mirroring and negotiating the regulatory debates, were creating a new social space for products between medicine and consumer culture. This space was articulated through three themes: (i) how "genes" and tests were framed, (ii) how the individual was imagined vis a vis health information, and (iii) the advice and treatments offered. The themes mapped onto four frames or models for genetic testing: (i) clinical genetics, (ii) medicine, (iii) intermediate, and (iv) lifestyle. We suggest that the genomics researchers and policy makers appeared to perform what Gieryn (Gieryn, T.F. (1983). Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological Review, 48, 781-795.) has termed "boundary work", i.e., to delegitimize the tests as outside proper medicine and science. Yet, they legitimated them, though in a different way, by defining them as lifestyle, and we contend that the transformation of the boundaries of science into a creation of such hybrid or compromise categories is symptomatic of current historical times. Social scientists studying medicine have referred to the emergence of "lifestyle" products. This article contributes to this literature by examining the historical, regulatory and marketing processes through which certain goods and services become defined this way.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.