The number of people accessing their own polygenic risk scores (PRSs) online is rapidly increasing, yet little is known about why people are doing this, how they react to the information, and what they do with it. We conducted a qualitative interview-based study with people who pursued PRSs through Impute.me, to explore their motivations for seeking PRS information, their emotional reactions, and actions taken in response to their results. Using interpretive description, we developed a theoretical model describing the experience of receiving PRSs in a direct-to-consumer (DTC) context. Dissatisfaction with healthcare was an important motivator for seeking PRS information. Participants described having medical concerns dismissed and experiencing medical distrust, which drove them to self-advocate for their health, which ultimately led them to seek PRSs. Polygenic risk scores were often empowering for participants but could be distressing when PRS information did not align with participants’ perceptions of their personal or family histories. Behavioural changes made in response to PRS results included dietary modifications, changes in vitamin supplementation and talk-based therapy. Our data provides the first qualitative insight into how people’s lived experience influence their interactions with DTC PRSs.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Subscribe to Journal
Get full journal access for 1 year
only $9.92 per issue
All prices are NET prices.
VAT will be added later in the checkout.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.
All prices are NET prices.
Original qualitative data will not be made publicly available to protect the privacy of research participants.
Data analyzed through the study is available in the published manuscript. Raw and coded data will not be made available to protect the privacy of research participants.
Lewis CM, Vassos E. Prospects for using risk scores in polygenic medicine. Genome Med. 2017;9:9–11.
Torkamani A, Wineinger NE, Topol EJ. The personal and clinical utility of polygenic risk scores. Nat Rev Genet. 2018;19:581–90. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41576-018-0018-x.
Duncan L, Shen H, Gelaye B, Meijsen J, Ressler K, Feldman M, et al. Analysis of polygenic risk score usage and performance in diverse human populations. Nat Commun. 2019;10. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-11112-0.
Adeyemo A, Balaconis MK, Darnes DR, Fatumo S, Granados Moreno P, Hodonsky CJ, et al. Responsible use of polygenic risk scores in the clinic: potential benefits, risks, and gaps. Nat Med. 2021;27:1876–84.
Lewis ACF, Green RC, Vassy JL. Polygenic risk scores in the clinic: Translating risk into action. Hum Genet Genom Adv. 2021;2:100047. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xhgg.2021.100047.
Khera AV, Chaffin M, Aragam KG, Haas ME, Roselli C, Choi SH, et al. Genome-wide polygenic scores for common diseases identify individuals with risk equivalent to monogenic mutations. Nat Genet. 2018;50:1219–24. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41588-018-0183-z.
Folkersen L, Pain O, Ingason A, Werge T, Lewis CM, Austin J. Impute.me: An open-source, non-profit tool for using data from direct-to-consumer genetic testing to calculate and interpret polygenic risk scores. Front Genet. 2020;11:1–11.
Roberts JS, Ostergren J. Direct-to-consumer genetic testing and personal genomics services: a review of recent empirical studies. Curr Genet Med Rep. 2013;1:182–200.
Covolo L, Rubinelli S, Ceretti E, Gelatti U Internet-based direct-to-consumer genetic testing: A systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2015;17:e279. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.4378.
Stewart KFJ, Wesselius A, Schreurs MAC, Schols AMWJ, Zeegers MP. Behavioural changes, sharing behaviour and psychological responses after receiving direct-to-consumer genetic test results: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Commun Genet. 2018;9:1–18.
James KM, Cowl CT, Tilburt JC, Sinicrope PS, Robinson ME, Frimannsdottir KR, et al. Impact of direct-to-consumer predictive genomic testing on risk perception and worry among patients receiving routine care in a preventive health clinic. Mayo Clin Proc. 2011;86:933–40.
Egglestone C, Morris A, O’Brien A. Effect of direct-to-consumer genetic tests on health behaviour and anxiety: A survey of consumers and potential consumers. J Genet Couns. 2013;22:565–75.
Roberts JS, Gornick MC, Carere DA, Uhlmann WR, Ruffin MT, Green RC. Direct-to-consumer genetic testing: User motivations, decision making, and perceived utility of results. Public Health Genom. 2017;20:36–45.
Carere DA, Kraft P, Kaphingst KA, Roberts JS, Green RC. Consumers report lower confidence in their genetics knowledge following direct-to-consumer personal genomic testing. Genet Med. 2016;18:65–72.
Kaphingst KA, McBride CM, Wade C, Alford SH, Reid R, Larson E, et al. Patients understanding of and responses to multiplex genetic susceptibility test results. Genet Med. 2012;14:681–7.
Smit AK, Newson AJ, Best M, Badcock CA, Butow PN, Kirk J, et al. Distress, uncertainty, and positive experiences associated with receiving information on personal genomic risk of melanoma. Eur J Hum Genet. 2018;26:1094–100. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-018-0145-z.
Young MA, Forrest LE, Rasmussen VM, James P, Mitchell G, Sawyer SD, et al. Making sense of SNPs: women’s understanding and experiences of receiving a personalized profile of their breast cancer risks. J Genet Couns. 2018;27:702–8.
Bancroft EK, Castro E, Bancroft GA, Ardern-Jones A, Moynihan C, Page E, et al. The psychological impact of undergoing genetic-risk profiling in men with a family history of prostate cancer. Psychooncology. 2015;24:1492–9.
Yanes T, Kaur R, Meiser B, Scheepers-Joynt M, McInerny S, Barlow-Stewart K, et al. Women’s responses and understanding of polygenic breast cancer risk information. Fam Cancer. 2020;19:297–306. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10689-020-00185-2.
Willis AM, Smith SK, Meiser B, James PA, Ballinger ML, Thomas DM, et al. Influence of lived experience on risk perception among women who received a breast cancer polygenic risk score: ‘Another piece of the pie.’. J Genet Couns. 2021;30:849–60.
Yanes T, Meiser B, Kaur R, Young MA, Mitchell PB, Scheepers-Joynt M, et al. Breast cancer polygenic risk scores: a 12-month prospective study of patient-reported outcomes and risk management behavior. Genet Med. 2021;23:2316–23. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41436-021-01288-6.
Putt S, Yanes T, Meiser B, Kaur R, Fullerton JM, Barlow-Stewart K, et al. Exploration of experiences with and understanding of polygenic risk scores for bipolar disorder. J Affect Disord. 2020;265:342–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2020.01.037.
Bloss CS, Schork NJ, Topol EJ. Effect of direct-to-consumer genomewide profiling to assess disease risk. N. Engl J Med. 2011;364:524–34.
Peck L, Borle K, Folkersen L, Austin J. Why do people seek out polygenic risk scores for complex disorders, and how do they understand and react to results? Eur J Hum Genet. 2022;30:81–7.
Christianson S, Marren J. The Impact of Event Scale - Revised (IES-R). Medsurg Nurs. 2012;21:321–2.
Thorne S, Kirkham SR, O’Flynn-Magee K. The analytic challenge in interpretive description. Int J Qual Methods. 2004;3:1–11.
Thorne S. Beyond theming: Making qualitative studies matter. Nurs Inq. 2020;27:1–2.
Gerdes AM, Nicolaisen L, Husum E, Andersen JB, Gantzhorn MD, Roos L, et al. Direct to consumer genetic testing in Denmark—public knowledge, use, and attitudes. Eur J Hum Genet [Internet]. 2021;29:851–60. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-021-00810-3.
Gollust SE, Gordon ES, Zayac C, Griffin G, Christman MF, Pyeritz RE, et al. Motivations and perceptions of early adopters of personalized genomics: Perspectives from research participants. Public Health Genomics. 2011;15:22–30.
Angelo F, Veenstra D, Knerr S, Devine B Prevalence and prediction of medical distrust in a diverse medical genomic research sample. Genet Med [Internet]. 2022;1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gim.2022.03.007.
Nicolaidis C, Raymaker D, McDonald K, Dern S, Boisclair WC, Ashkenazy E, et al. Comparison of healthcare experiences in autistic and non-autistic adults: A cross-sectional online survey facilitated by an academic-community partnership. J Gen Intern Med. 2013;28:761–9.
Fortuna KL, Ferron J, Pratt SI, Muralidharan A, Aschbrenner KA, Williams AM, et al. Unmet needs of people with serious mental illness: perspectives from certified peer specialists. Psychiatr Q. 2019;90:579–86.
Lebowitz MS, Ahn WK. Testing positive for a genetic predisposition to depression magnifies retrospective memory for depressive symptoms. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2017;85:1052–63.
Lineweaver TT, Bondi MW, Galasko D, Salmon DP. Effect of knowledge of APOE genotype on subjective and objective memory performance in healthy older adults. Am J Psychiatry. 2014;171:201–8.
Nelson SC, Bowen DJ, Fullerton SM. Third-party genetic interpretation tools: a mixed-methods study of consumer motivation and behavior. Am J Hum Genet [Internet]. 2019;105:122–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajhg.2019.05.014.
Bloss CS, Wineinger NE, Darst BF, Schork NJ, Topol EJ. Impact of direct-to-consumer genomic testing at long-term follow-up. J Med Genet. 2013;50:393–400.
The authors offer gratitude to the Coast Salish Peoples, including the xʷməθkwəy̓əm (Musqueam), Skwxwú7mesh (Squamish), and Səl̓ílwətaʔ/Selilwitulh (Tsleil-Waututh) Nations, on whose traditional, unceded and ancestral territory we have the privilege of working. The authors are grateful for the many contributions of all members of the Translational Psychiatric Genetics Group.
This research was supported by research grants from the National Society of Genetic Counselors Precision Medicine Special Interest Group and the University of British Columbia and was conducted to fulfill a degree requirement as part of training. JA was supported by the Canada Research Chairs program, and BC Mental Health and Substance Use Services. The funders had no role in review or approval of the manuscript.
KL and KB declare no conflicts of interest. Dr. Lasse Folkersen founded Impute.me and Dr. Jehannine Austin provided consultation for the website, though neither made a profit from this service. Dr. Austin also provides consultation for 23andme. The voluntary donations received by Impute.me go to a registered company, from where it is used to pay for server costs. Impute.me was a Danish-law IVS company with ID 37918806, financially audited under Danish tax law.
All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the University of British Columbia. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study. The study was approved by the University of British Columbia’s Research Ethics Board (H21-01616).
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
Lowes, K., Borle, K., Folkersen, L. et al. A qualitative study exploring the consumer experience of receiving self-initiated polygenic risk scores from a third-party website. Eur J Hum Genet (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-022-01203-w