Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41502464›Full record

SynthesisOpen research Europe2025

Sharing behavior and health care utilization following direct-to-consumer genetic testing: a systematic review.

Eva Van Steijvoort, Kaatje Goossens, Kenji Demesure, Alexandra Stanczak, Maria Siermann, Pascal Borry

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Open research Europe, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

6 authors.

Eva Van SteijvoortDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Centre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, KU Leuven, Leuven, 3000, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3134-4028
Kaatje GoossensDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Centre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, KU Leuven, Leuven, 3000, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0009-0538-1387
Kenji DemesureDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Centre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, KU Leuven, Leuven, 3000, Belgium.
Alexandra StanczakDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Centre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, KU Leuven, Leuven, 3000, Belgium.
Maria SiermannDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Centre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, KU Leuven, Leuven, 3000, Belgium.
Pascal BorryDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Centre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, KU Leuven, Leuven, 3000, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4931-9560

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Direct-to-consumer genetic testing (DTC-GT) which provides genetic information directly to the public, has become widely available at a moderate cost. Since DTC-GT companies frequently recommend that consumers consult healthcare professionals for assistance in interpreting and using genetic health risk information, this could potentially have an impact on healthcare systems. Methods: We performed a systematic review to assess: (1) the sharing behavior of actual DTC-GT consumers, (2) experiences of healthcare professionals regarding DTC-GT consumers sharing their test results and (3) healthcare utilization following DTC-GT, with a particular focus on validation of DTC-GT results and subsequent clinical actions. Our systematic review was registered in PROSPERO under the registration number CRD42024517079. Results: Our search identified 40 unique articles eligible for inclusion that were published between 2009 en 2022. The proportion of participants who shared their DTC-GT test results with a health care professional ranged from 1% to 57%. DTC-GT consumers most commonly reported sharing their results with a primary healthcare professional. The proportion of health care professionals that had experiences with DTC-consumers sharing their test results ranged from 19% to 76%. The percentage of participants sharing their DTC-GT test with family members ranged from 18% to 98%. More detailed analysis indicated that this was frequently the case with partners, parents, and siblings. Sharing of test results with extended family members occurred less frequently. Several studies reported on instances of DTC-GT result validation and clinical actions performed based on the DTC-GT findings. Conclusion: Conclusion While initial concerns about the impact of DTC-GT on health care systems have not fully materialized, the increasing number of consumers consulting with healthcare professionals underscores the need for preparedness and appropriate policy responses. Future research should prioritize standardizing study methodologies and expanding investigations beyond the U.S. context to better capture the global impact of DTC-GT.

Indexed as

Direct to consumerGenetic testingGenomicsPredictive TestingPreventionPublic HealthScreening

Identifiers

PMID41502464
PMCPMC12770896

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.