Australians' perspectives on support around use of personal genomic testing: Findings from the Genioz study.


Journal

European journal of medical genetics
ISSN: 1878-0849
Titre abrégé: Eur J Med Genet
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 101247089

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
May 2019
Historique:
received: 13 06 2018
revised: 26 10 2018
accepted: 01 11 2018
pubmed: 16 11 2018
medline: 30 8 2019
entrez: 16 11 2018
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Personal genomic testing using direct-to-consumer and consumer-directed models, with or without involvement of healthcare providers, is increasing internationally, including in Australia. This study forms a sub-set of the Genioz study - Genomics: National Insights of Australians. We aimed to explore Australians' experiences with these types of tests, especially online DNA tests, and their views regarding whom they would seek support from around understanding test results. The study used a mixed methods approach, employing an exploratory quantitative online survey and follow-up qualitative semi-structured interviews. Between May 2016 and May 2017, 2841 Australians responded to the survey. Interviews were conducted with 63 purposively sampled respondents, including 45 who had a genetic test and 18 who had not. Of 571 respondents who had any type of genetic test, 322 had a personal genomic test using criteria defined by the researchers. Testing for ancestry/genealogy was the most common, reported by 267 participants, reflecting the increased advertising of these tests in Australia. Some respondents described downloading their raw data for further interpretation through third party websites for genealogical as well as health related information. Carrier testing, testing for serious and preventable conditions and nutrition and/or wellness were the most common health related tests reported by respondents. Participants generally preferred to seek support from general practitioners (GPs), medical specialists with relevant expertise and independent genetics specialists, although another important preference for non-health information was online forums and networks. There was less preference for seeking support from employees associated with the testing companies. Generally, of those who had a health related PGT, the most common actions were seeking medical advice or doing nothing with the information, while more of those who had a personal genomic test for nutrition and/or wellness sought advice from complementary/alternative health practitioners (eg naturopaths) and integrative GPs, and 60% reported they had changed their diet. As awareness of personal genomic testing increases, publicly funded clinical genetics services may be less inclined to discuss results from personal genomic testing. Genetic counsellors could play an important role in providing this support, both pre-test and post-test, through opportunities for private practice but independent from testing companies.

Identifiants

pubmed: 30439534
pii: S1769-7212(18)30438-5
doi: 10.1016/j.ejmg.2018.11.002
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

290-299

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS.

Auteurs

Sylvia A Metcalfe (SA)

Department of Paediatrics, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. Electronic address: sylvia.metcalfe@mcri.edu.au.

Chriselle Hickerton (C)

Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.

Jacqueline Savard (J)

The University of Sydney, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney School of Public Health, Sydney Health Ethics, Sydney, NSW, Australia; Garvan Institute of Medical Research, Sydney, NSW, Australia.

Elaine Stackpoole (E)

Department of Paediatrics, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.

Rigan Tytherleigh (R)

Department of Paediatrics, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.

Erin Tutty (E)

Department of Paediatrics, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.

Bronwyn Terrill (B)

Garvan Institute of Medical Research, Sydney, NSW, Australia; St Vincent's Clinical School, UNSW Medicine, UNSW Sydney, Australia.

Erin Turbitt (E)

Department of Paediatrics, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.

Kathleen Gray (K)

Health and Biomedical Informatics Centre, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.

Anna Middleton (A)

Society and Ethics Research, Connecting Science, Wellcome Genome Campus, Cambridge, UK; Faculty of Education, University of Cambridge, UK.

Brenda Wilson (B)

School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.

Ainsley J Newson (AJ)

The University of Sydney, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney School of Public Health, Sydney Health Ethics, Sydney, NSW, Australia; Garvan Institute of Medical Research, Sydney, NSW, Australia.

Clara Gaff (C)

Department of Paediatrics, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; The Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, Melbourne, Australia.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH