Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31645768›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2020

Public reactions to direct-to-consumer genetic health tests: A comparison across the US, UK, Japan and Australia.

Jan Charbonneau, Dianne Nicol, Don Chalmers, Kazuto Kato, Natsuko Yamamoto, Jarrod Walshe, Christine Critchley

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of human genetics : EJHG, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. VERTIcal Grid lOgistic regression with Confidence Intervals (VERTIGO-CI).AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science
    Article
  7. Use of At-Home Medical Tests Among Older US Adults: A Nationally Representative Survey.Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financing
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Jan CharbonneauCentre for Law & Genetics, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS, Australia. jan.charbonneau@utas.edu.au.
Dianne NicolCentre for Law & Genetics, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6553-2839
Don ChalmersCentre for Law & Genetics, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS, Australia.
Kazuto KatoDepartment of Biomedical Ethics and Public Policy, Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka University, Osaka, Japan.
Natsuko YamamotoDepartment of Biomedical Ethics and Public Policy, Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka University, Osaka, Japan.
Jarrod WalsheDepartment of Statistics, Data Science and Epidemiology, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Christine CritchleyCentre for Law & Genetics, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

While direct to consumer health-related genetic testing (DTCGT) has potential to provide accessible genetic information and empower individuals to make informed healthcare decisions, it attracts concern associated with regulatory gaps, clinical utility and potential for harm. Understanding public reactions to DTCGT is vital to facilitate considered regulatory, health care and consumer protection strategies. Yet little is known, particularly outside the dominant US market, about how the general public view and might engage with DTCGT outside traditional health care systems. This paper addresses this knowledge gap with the first empirical study to investigate general public views across four countries, each at different stages of market development. US (n = 1000), UK (n = 1014), Japanese (n = 1018) and Australian (n = 1000) respondents completed an online experimental survey assessing comprehension, risk perceptions, and potential psychological and behavioural outcomes by type of test (disease pre-disposition and drug sensitivity), severity, lifestyle factors, and family history. Results showed generally low awareness and intention to purchase across countries, highest in the US and lowest in Japan. Results also showed clear preference for within-country purchases (less in Japan), with reports returned via doctors far more important in Japan. All respondents were more likely to act on test results, where there was higher genetic or lifestyle risk of developing a disease. Statistical comparisons of demographic and health-related variables across countries point to the need for further analyses designed to explain much needed cross-cultural, cross-health care system and developed versus developing market differences.

Indexed as

Genetic TestingHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticePublic RelationsAdultAgedAustraliaConsumer BehaviorCross-Cultural ComparisonDirect-To-Consumer Screening and TestingFemaleHumansJapanMaleMiddle AgedSocial ClassUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID31645768
PMCPMC7029038

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.