ArticleThe Proceedings of the Nutrition Society2013
State of play in direct-to-consumer genetic testing for lifestyle-related diseases: market, marketing content, user experiences and regulation.
Article in The Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- 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.The British journal of nutrition · 2016Pooled it
- Internet-Based Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing: A Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2015Pooled it
- Interest and informational preferences regarding genomic testing for modest increases in colorectal cancer risk.Public health genomics · 2014Trial
- PAGEANT: personal access to genome and analysis of natural traits.Nucleic acids research · 2022Article
- Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing in South Africa: Stumbling Over the First Legal Hurdle?Potchefstroom electronic law journal · 2022Article
- Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing in Korea: Current Status and Significance in Clinical Nutrition.Clinical nutrition research · 2021Review
- Enhanced long-term dietary change and adherence in a nutrigenomics-guided lifestyle intervention compared to a population-based (GLB/DPP) lifestyle intervention for weight management: results from the NOW randomised controlled trial.BMJ nutrition, prevention & health · 2020Article
- A Scientific Perspective of Personalised Gene-Based Dietary Recommendations for Weight Management.Nutrients · 2019Review
- "I would rather have it done by a doctor"-laypeople's perceptions of direct-to-consumer genetic testing (DTC GT) and its ethical implications.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2019Article
- Personalised nutrition and health.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2018Review
- Medicine, market and communication: ethical considerations in regard to persuasive communication in direct-to-consumer genetic testing services.BMC medical ethics · 2018Article
- Factors Associated with Acceptability, Consideration and Intention of Uptake of Direct-To-Consumer Genetic Testing: A Survey Study.Public health genomics · 2018Article
- Genetic testing for exercise prescription and injury prevention: AIS-Athlome consortium-FIMS joint statement.BMC genomics · 2017Article
- Personal Genomic Testing for Cancer Risk: Results From the Impact of Personal Genomics Study.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2017Article
- Awareness, attitudes and perspectives of direct-to-consumer genetic testing in Greece: a survey of potential consumers.Journal of human genetics · 2015Article
- DTC-and-Me: Patient, Provider, Proteins and Regulators.Journal of personalized medicine · 2014Article
- Risks of nutrigenomics and nutrigenetics? What the scientists say.Genes & nutrition · 2014Article
- Direct-to-consumer genetic testing: a comprehensive view.The Yale journal of biology and medicine · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
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.
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.