Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Public Awareness of Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Tests: Findings from the 2013 U.S. Health Information National Trends Survey

  • Published:
Journal of Cancer Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Although the availability of direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing has increased in recent years, the general public’s awareness of this testing is not well understood. This study examined levels of public awareness of DTC genetic testing, sources of information about testing, and psychosocial factors associated with awareness of testing in the USA. Data were obtained from the nationally representative 2013 U.S. Health Information National Trends Survey. Guided by a social-cognitive conceptual framework, univariable and multivariable logistic regressions were conducted to identify factors associated with awareness of DTC genetic tests. Of 3185 participants, 35.6 % were aware of DTC genetic tests, with the majority learning about these tests through radio, television, and the Internet. In the final adjusted model, participants with annual incomes of $99,999 or less had lower odds of being aware of DTC genetic testing (ORs ranging from 0.46–0.61) than did those participants with incomes of $100,000 or more. The odds of awareness of DTC genetic tests were significantly higher for those who actively seek cancer information (OR = 1.91, 95 % CI = 1.36–2.69), use the Internet (OR = 1.81, 95 % CI = 1.05–3.13), and have high numeracy skills (OR = 1.67, 95 % CI = 1.17–2.38). It will be critical for healthcare researchers and practitioners to understand predictors and consequences of the public’s awareness of DTC genetic tests, as well as how such awareness may translate into DTC genetic testing uptake, health behavior change, and ultimately disease prevention.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Frueh FW, Greely HT, Green RC, Hogarth S, Siegel S (2011) The future of direct-to-consumer clinical genetic tests. Nat Rev Genet 12:511–515

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Global Industry Analysts (2012) Future of Direct-to-Consumer (DTC) Genetic Testing Market Remains Fraught. PRWeb Internet. Available at: http://www.prweb.com/releases/DTC_genetic_testing/direct_to_consumer_tests/prweb9780295.htm

  3. Lewis NP, Treise D, Hsu SI, Allen WL, Kang H (2011) DTC genetic testing companies fail transparency prescriptions. New Genet Soc 30:291–307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. U.S.Food and Drug Administration. (2014) Warning letter, 23andMe, Inc. 11/22/13. Inspections, compliance, enforcement, and criminal investigations. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/EnforcementActions/WarningLetters/2013/ucm376296.htm

  5. U.S.Food and Drug Administration (14 A.D.) FDA takes steps to help ensure the reliability of certain diagnostic tests. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm407321.htm

  6. Langford AT, Resnicow K, Roberts JS, Zikmund-Fisher BJ (2012) Racial and ethnic differences in direct-to-consumer genetic tests awareness in HINTS 2007: sociodemographic and numeracy correlates. J Genet Couns 21:440–447

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Finney Rutten LJ, Gollust SE, Naveed S, Moser RP (2012) Increasing public awareness of direct-to-consumer genetic tests: health care access, internet use, and population density correlates. J Cancer Epidemiol 2012:309109

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Kolor K, Duquette D, Zlot A et al (2012) Public awareness and use of direct-to-consumer personal genomic tests from four state population-based surveys, and implications for clinical and public health practice. Genet Med 14:860–867

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Foster C, Evans DG, Eeles R et al (2002) Predictive testing for BRCA1/2: attributes, risk perception and management in a multi-centre clinical cohort. Br J Cancer 86:1209–1216

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Kelly KM, Andrews JE, Case DO, Allard SL, Johnson JD (2007) Information seeking and intentions to have genetic testing for hereditary cancers in rural and Appalachian Kentuckians. J Rural Health 23:166–172

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Leighton JW, Valverde K, Bernhardt BA (2011) The general public's understanding and perception of direct-to-consumer genetic test results. Public Health Genomics

  12. Lea DH, Kaphingst KA, Bowen D, Lipkus I, Hadley DW (2011) Communicating genetic and genomic information: health literacy and numeracy considerations. Public Health Genomics 14:279–289

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Caulfield T, Ries NM, Ray PN, Shuman C, Wilson B (2010) Direct-to-consumer genetic testing: good, bad or benign? Clin Genet 77:101–105

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Cameron LD, Sherman KA, Marteau TM, Brown PM (2009) Impact of genetic risk information and type of disease on perceived risk, anticipated affect, and expected consequences of genetic tests. Health Psychol 28:307–316

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Glanz K, Grove J, Lerman C, Gotay C, Le ML (1999) Correlates of intentions to obtain genetic counseling and colorectal cancer gene testing among at-risk relatives from three ethnic groups. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 8:329–336

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. National Cancer Institute (2014) Health Information National Trends Survey 4 (HINTS 4): Cycle 3 Methodology Report. In Westat (Ed.). Rockville, MD: National Cancer Institute

  17. Weiss BD, Mays MZ, Martz W et al (2005) Quick assessment of literacy in primary care: the newest vital sign. Ann Fam Med 3:514–522

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Su P (2013) Direct-to-consumer genetic testing: a comprehensive view. Yale J Biol Med 86:359–365

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Waters EA, Muff J, Hamilton JG (2014) Multifactorial beliefs about the role of genetics and behavior in common health conditions: prevalence and associations with participant characteristics and engagement in health behaviors. Genet Med 16:913–921

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Cline RJ, Haynes KM (2001) Consumer health information seeking on the Internet: the state of the art. Health Educ Res 16:671–692

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Smerecnik C, Quaak M, van Schayck CP, van Schooten FJ, De Vries H (2011) Are smokers interested in genetic testing for smoking addiction? A socio-cognitive approach. Psychol Health 26:1099–1112

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Kaphingst KA, Lachance CR, Condit CM (2009) Beliefs about heritability of cancer and health information seeking and preventive behaviors. J Cancer Educ 24:351–356

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Chen Y, Feeley TH (2014) Numeracy, information seeking, and self-efficacy in managing health: an analysis using the 2007 Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS). Health Commun 29:843–853

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Graves KD, Peshkin BN, Luta G, Tuong W, Schwartz MD (2011) Interest in genetic testing for modest changes in breast cancer risk: implications for SNP testing. Public Health Genomics 14:178–189

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Hanoch Y, Miron-Shatz T, Rolison JJ, Ozanne E (2014) Understanding of BRCA1/2 genetic tests results: the importance of objective and subjective numeracy. Psychooncology

Download references

Conflict of Interest

The authors have no conflicts of interests or financial interests to disclose.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Behavioral Research Program, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Bethesda, MD, USA

    Tanya Agurs-Collins, Rebecca Ferrer & Mary E. O’Connell

  2. Dr. Susan Love Research Foundation, Santa Monica, CA, USA

    Allison Ottenbacher

  3. Division of Public Health Sciences, Department of Surgery, Siteman Cancer Center, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA

    Erika A. Waters

  4. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA

    Jada G. Hamilton

Authors
  1. Tanya Agurs-Collins
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rebecca Ferrer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Allison Ottenbacher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Erika A. Waters
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Mary E. O’Connell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jada G. Hamilton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tanya Agurs-Collins.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Agurs-Collins, T., Ferrer, R., Ottenbacher, A. et al. Public Awareness of Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Tests: Findings from the 2013 U.S. Health Information National Trends Survey. J Canc Educ 30, 799–807 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-014-0784-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-014-0784-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation