ArticleJournal of genetic counseling2025
Acceptability, consideration, intention, and uptake of six common types of direct-to-consumer genetic tests in the Netherlands.
Article in Journal of genetic counseling, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Patient views on receiving a pharmacogenetic passport - a mixed methods study exploring experiences and use after an opportunistic offer.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2026Article
- Acceptability, consideration, intention, and uptake of six common types of direct-to-consumer genetic tests in the Netherlands.Journal of genetic counseling · 2025Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
While direct-to-consumer genetic testing (DTC-GT) has gained significant popularity, concerns persist that the public may lack adequate information and support to make well-informed decisions and understand test results. Several types of DTC-GT are on the market, each with distinct purposes and risks. The expected user population may differ per type of DTC-GT, suggesting a need for tailored information materials. Considering six different types of DTC-GT, this paper aims to identify how people's acceptability of DTC-GT and their interest in undergoing a DTC-GT within the next year (intention) and in the future (consideration) may differ depending on individuals' characteristics or the type of DTC-GT. An online cross-sectional survey was conducted in April 2022 among Dutch adults. Generalized linear models determined factors associated with DTC-GT acceptability, consideration, and intention. Open-ended responses were analyzed using inductive content analysis in MaxQDA. Of 907 respondents, 34 (3.7%) had purchased a DTC-GT, with the majority opting for ancestry tests. Health-related tests had the highest consideration and intention but were deemed the least acceptable to undergo without a healthcare professional. Open-ended responses supported quantitative findings on the differences in acceptability, consideration, and intention across test types. Overall, few respondents intended to undergo a test within the next year. Factors influencing DTC-GT acceptability, consideration, and intention overlapped by the test type. The most common factors, age and education level, were both inversely associated with the outcomes. This study suggests that the Dutch public is mostly interested in health-related DTC-GT but does not find them acceptable without professional support. Ensuring that DTC-GT information is comprehensible for younger and less educated individuals is crucial. Genetic counselors could provide valuable expertise in developing these materials.
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.