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.

  • Article
  • Published:

Assessing the general public’s view of direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing and their interpretation of DTC website disclaimer messages

European Journal of Human Genetics volume 31, pages 939–944 (2023)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

The general public continues to show increased interest and uptake of Direct-to-Consumer (DTC) genetic testing. We conducted an online survey (N = 405) to assess genetics knowledge, interest, and outcome expectancy of DTC genetic testing before and after exposure to a sample DTC disclaimer message. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the relationship between previous genetic knowledge, attitudes and self-reported systematic processing of a sample DTC disclaimer message, outcome expectancies, and interest to pursue DTC genetic testing. Increased genetic knowledge and more positive attitudes towards DTC genetic testing were associated with increased self-reported systematic processing of the DTC disclaimer message. Further, self-reported systematic processing of the DTC disclaimer message was associated with greater interest in pursuing DTC genetic testing but did not predict outcome expectancies. As DTC genetic testing continues to gain in popularity and usage, additional research is imperative to better understand participants’ motivations and processing of the DTC disclaimer messages to improve the user experience.

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

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Outline of study hypotheses.
Fig. 2: Summary of hypotheses and associated results.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  1. Rosenberg J. As DTC genetic testing grows among consumers, insurers are beginning to get on board. Am J Manag Care. 2019 April 22, 2019.

  2. 23andME. Do You Speak BRCA? 2020. Available from: https://www.23andme.com/brca/.

  3. Gollust SE, Hull SC, Wilfond BS. Limitations of direct-to-consumer advertising for clinical genetic testing. Jama. 2002;288:1762–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Koeller DR, Uhlmann WR, Carere DA, Green RC, Roberts JS, Group PGS. Utilization of genetic counseling after direct-to-consumer genetic testing: findings from the impact of personal genomics (PGen) study. J Genet Counsel. 2017;26:1270–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Moscarello T, Murray B, Reuter CM, Demo E. Direct-to-consumer raw genetic data and third-party interpretation services: more burden than bargain? Genet Med: Off J Am Coll Med Genet. 2019;21:539–41.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Tandy-Connor S, Guiltinan J, Krempely K, LaDuca H, Reineke P, Gutierrez S, et al. False-positive results released by direct-to-consumer genetic tests highlight the importance of clinical confirmation testing for appropriate patient care. Genet Med: Off J Am Coll Med Genet. 2018;20:1515–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Chaiken S, Liberman A, Eagly A. Heuristic and systematic processing within and beyond the persuasion context. Veleman J, Bargh J, editors. New York: Guildford; 1989.

  8. Chaiken S. The heuristic model of persuasion. Zanna M, Olson J, Herman C, editors. Hillsdale, NJ 1987.

  9. Hitt R, Perrault E, Smith S, Keating DM, Nazione S, Silk K, et al. Scientific message translation and the heuristic systematic model: insights for designing educational messages about progesterone and breast cancer risks. J Cancer Educ: Off J Am Assoc Cancer Educ. 2016;31:389–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Chaiken S, Maheswaran D. Heuristic processing can bias systematic processing: effects of source credibility, argument ambiguity, and task importance on attitude judgment. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1994;66:460–73.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Stewart KFJ, Kokole D, Wesselius A, Schols A, Zeegers MP, de Vries H, et al. Factors associated with acceptability, consideration and intention of uptake of direct-to-consumer genetic testing: a survey study. Public Health Genom. 2018;21:45–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Robitzsch A. Why Ordinal Variables Can (Almost) Always Be Treated as Continuous Variables: Clarifying Assumptions of Robust Continuous and Ordinal Factor Analysis Estimation Methods. Frontiers in Education. 2020;5.

  13. Papacharissi Z, Mendelson A. An exploratory study of reality appeal: uses and gratifications of reality TV shows. J Broadcasting Electron Media. 2007;51:355–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Chen S, Chaiken S. The heuristic-systematic model in its broader context. Chaiken S, Trope Y, editors. New York: Guilford;1999.

  15. Afifi WA, Morgan SE, Stephenson MT, Morse C, Harrison T, Reichert T, et al. Examining the decision to talk with family about organ donation: applying the theory of motivated information management. Commun Monogr. 2006;73:188–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Kahlor L. PRISM: a planned risk information seeking model. Health Commun. 2010;25:345–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 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: Off J Am Coll Med Genet. 2016;18:65–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Krosnick JA, Petty RE. Attitude strength: an overview. Attitude strength: antecedents and consequences. Ohio State University series on attitudes and persuasion, Vol. 4. Hillsdale, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc; 1995. p. 1–24.

  19. Chaiken S, Maheswaran D. Heuristic processing can bias systematic processing: effects of source credibility, argument ambiguity and task importance on attitude judgment. J Per Soc Psycho. 1994;66:430–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Eagly A, Chaiken S. The psychology of attitudes. San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. 1993.

  21. Lachance CR, Erby LA, Ford BM, Allen VC Jr, Kaphingst KA. Informational content, literacy demands, and usability of websites offering health-related genetic tests directly to consumers. Genet Med: Off J Am Coll Med Genet. 2010;12:304–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Byron MJ, Hall MG, King JL, Ribisl KM, Brewer NT. Reducing nicotine without misleading the public: descriptions of cigarette nicotine level and accuracy of perceptions about nicotine content, addictiveness, and risk. Nicotine Tob Res. 2019;21:S101–S7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Dougherty MJ, Lontok KS, Donigan K. The critical challenge of educating the public about genetics. Curr Genet Med Rep. 2014;2:48–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

There was no specific funding associated with this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Human Genetics, Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, 43420, USA

    Madison Ruehl & Kevin Sweet

  2. Ohio Health Cancer Genetic Counseling, Bing Cancer Center, Columbus, OH, 43214, USA

    Madison Ruehl

  3. School of Communication, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, 43214, USA

    Shelly Hovick

  4. Department of Medicine, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS, 66160, USA

    Alisdair Philp

Authors
  1. Madison Ruehl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Shelly Hovick
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Alisdair Philp
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Kevin Sweet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

MR: conceptualization, methodology, writing-original draft, writing-review & editing. SH: conceptualization, methodology, writing-review & editing. AP: conceptualization, methodology, writing-review & editing. KS: conceptualization, methodology, writing-review & editing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Madison Ruehl.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethics approval

All procedures followed were in accordance with ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000. Informed consent was obtained from all participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ruehl, M., Hovick, S., Philp, A. et al. Assessing the general public’s view of direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing and their interpretation of DTC website disclaimer messages. Eur J Hum Genet 31, 939–944 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-023-01411-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-023-01411-y

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links