Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

The impact of personal genomics on risk perceptions and medical decision-making

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

$32.00

All prices are NET prices.

Figure 1: Risk perception changes by risk result group.
Figure 2: Risk perception changes by risk result group and medical condition.
Figure 3: Risk perception changes by risk result group and motivation for testing.
Figure 4: Medical utilization according to maximum and median risk perception change.

References

  1. McGuire, A.L. & Burke, W. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 300, 2669–2671 (2008).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Bloss, C.S., Schork, N.J. & Topol, E.J. N. Engl. J. Med. 364, 524–534 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Bloss, C.S., Topol, E.J. & Schork, N.J. Genet. Epidemiol. 36, 66–70 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Christensen, K.D., Roberts, J.S., Uhlmann, W.R. & Green, R.C. Genet. Med. 13, 409–414 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Green, R.C. et al. N. Engl. J. Med. 361, 245–254 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Kaufman, D.J., Bollinger, J.M., Dvoskin, R.L. & Scott, J.A. J. Genet. Couns. 21, 413–422 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Ostergren, J.E. et al. Public Health Genomics 18, 216–224 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Roberts, J.S. & Ostergren, J. Curr. Genet. Med. Rep. 1, 182–200 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Shiloh, S. et al. Clin. Genet. 87, 117–123 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Bansback, N., Sizto, S., Guh, D. & Anis, A.H. Genet. Test. Mol. Biomarkers 16, 1165–1171 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Oster, E., Shoulson, I. & Ray Dorsey, E. Am. Econ. Rev. 103, 804–830 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Oster, E., Shoulson, I., Quaid, K. & Ray Dorsey, E. J. Public Econ. 94, 1041–1050 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Eil, D. & Rao, J.M. Am. Econ. J. Microecon. 3, 114–138 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Moutsiana, C. et al. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 110, 16396–16401 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Sharot, T. et al. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 109, 17058–17062 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Sharot, T., Korn, C.W. & Dolan, R.J. Nat. Neurosci. 14, 1475–1479 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. Science 185, 1124–1131 (1974).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Kuhnen, C.M. J. Finance 70, 2029–2062 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Ellsberg, D. Q. J. Econ. 75, 643–669 (1961).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Köszegi, B. J. Health Econ. 22, 1073–1084 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Tali Sharot, Alec Brandon, Jean Tirole, Alexandra Rodman, Daniel Fehder, Abhishek Nagaraj, Rebecca Grunberg, Roberto Fernandez, Sarah Kalia and members of the PGen Study Group (particularly Kurt Christensen, Deanna Alexis Carere, and Joanna L. Mountain). Members of the PGen Study Group are listed in Supplementary Note 2. The PGen Study is supported by the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) National Human Genome Research Institute (R01-HG005092). R.C.G. was additionally supported by the following NIH grants: U01-HG006500, U19-HD077671, U01-HG008685 and U41-HG006834.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

J.L.K. formulated the research question, designed and performed the analyses, prepared the figures and wrote the manuscript. F.M. helped with the research design, analyses, and manuscript writing. R.C.G. and J.S.R. designed and implemented the surveys, in their roles as the primary investigators of the Impact of Personal Genomics (PGen) study, and advised on the preparation of the figures and the manuscript. All authors edited and approved the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joshua L Krieger.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

R.C.G. receives personal compensation for speaking or consulting from AIA, Helix, Illumina, Invitae, Prudential and Roche.

Additional information

Editor's note: This article has been peer-reviewed.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Text and Figures

Supplementary Methods, Supplementary Notes 1 and 2, Supplementary Figures 1–5 and Supplementary Tables 1–9 (PDF 587 kb)

Supplementary Data (XLSX 994 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Krieger, J., Murray, F., Roberts, J. et al. The impact of personal genomics on risk perceptions and medical decision-making. Nat Biotechnol 34, 912–918 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.3661

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.3661

This article is cited by

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing