View Item 

Show simple item record

Consumer Perspectives on Access to Directâ toâ Consumer Genetic Testing: Role of Demographic Factors and the Testing Experience
dc.contributor.authorGollust, Sarah E.
dc.contributor.authorGray, Stacy W.
dc.contributor.authorCarere, Deanna Alexis
dc.contributor.authorKoenig, Barbara A.
dc.contributor.authorLehmann, Lisa Soleymani
dc.contributor.authorMcGUIRE, AMY L.
dc.contributor.authorSharp, Richard R.
dc.contributor.authorSpector‐bagdady, Kayte
dc.contributor.authorWang, Na
dc.contributor.authorGreen, Robert C.
dc.contributor.authorRoberts, J. Scott
dc.date.accessioned2017-06-16T20:12:03Z
dc.date.available2018-08-07T15:51:22Zen
dc.date.issued2017-06
dc.identifier.citationGollust, Sarah E. ; Gray, Stacy W. ; Carere, Deanna Alexis ; Koenig, Barbara A. ; Lehmann, Lisa Soleymani ; McGUIRE, AMY L.; Sharp, Richard R. ; Spector‐bagdady, Kayte ; Wang, Na ; Green, Robert C. ; Roberts, J. Scott (2017). "Consumer Perspectives on Access to Directâ toâ Consumer Genetic Testing: Role of Demographic Factors and the Testing Experience." The Milbank Quarterly 95(2): 291-318.
dc.identifier.issn0887-378X
dc.identifier.issn1468-0009
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/137391
dc.publisherWiley Periodicals, Inc.
dc.publisherUS Department of Health & Human Services
dc.subject.otherethics
dc.subject.otherregulation
dc.subject.otherpublic opinion
dc.subject.othergenetic testing
dc.titleConsumer Perspectives on Access to Directâ toâ Consumer Genetic Testing: Role of Demographic Factors and the Testing Experience
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.rights.robotsIndexNoFollow
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelPublic Health (General)
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelHealth Sciences
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Reviewed
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/137391/1/milq12262.pdf
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/137391/2/milq12262_am.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/1468-0009.12262
dc.identifier.sourceThe Milbank Quarterly
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRoberts JS, Gornick MC, Carere DA, et al. Directâ toâ consumer genetic testing: user motivations, decision making, and perceived utility of results [published online ahead of print January 10, 2017]. Public Health Genomics. https://doi.org/10.1159/000455006.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceJames KM, Cowl TC, Tilburt JC, et al. Impact of directâ toâ consumer predictive genomic testing on risk perception and worry among patients receiving routine care in a preventive health clinic. Mayo Clin Proc. 2011; 86 ( 10 ): 933 â 940.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBollinger JM, Green RC, Kaufman D. Attitudes about regulation among directâ toâ consumer genetic testing customers. Genet Test Mol Biomarkers. 2013; 17 ( 5 ): 424 â 428.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSniderman PM. The new look in public opinion research. In: Finifter A, ed. The State of the Discipline II. Washington, DC: American Political Science Association; 1993: 219 â 245.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMorain S, Mello MM. Survey finds public support for legal interventions directed at health behavior to fight noncommunicable disease. Health Aff (Millwood). 2013; 32 ( 3 ): 486 â 496.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLynch J, Gollust SE. Playing fair: fairness beliefs and health policy preferences in the United States. J Health Polit Policy Law. 2010; 35 ( 6 ): 849 â 887.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSears DO, Lau RR, Tyler TR, Allen HM Jr. Selfâ interest vs symbolic politics in policy attitudes and presidential voting. Am Polit Sci Rev. 1980; 74 ( 3 ): 670 â 684.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLau R, Heldman C. Selfâ Interest, symbolic attitudes, and support for public policy: a multilevel analysis. Polit Psychol. 2009; 30 ( 4 ): 513 â 537.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceChong D, Citrin J, Conley P. When selfâ interest matters. Polit Psychol. 2001; 22 ( 3 ): 541 â 570.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCarere DA, Couper MP, Crawford SD, et al. Design, methods, and participant characteristics of the Impact of Personal Genomics (PGen) Study, a prospective cohort study of directâ toâ consumer personal genomic testing customers. Genome Med. 2014; 6 ( 12 ): 96.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLehmann LS, Kaufman DJ, Sharp RR, et al. Navigating a research partnership between academia and industry to assess the impact of personalized genetic testing. Genet Med. 2012; 14 ( 2 ): 268 â 273.
dc.identifier.citedreferencevan der Wouden C, Carere DA, Maitlandâ van der Zee AH, et al. Consumer perceptions of interactions with primary care providers after directâ toâ consumer personal genomic testing. Ann Intern Med. 2016; 164 ( 8 ): 513 â 522.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCarere DA, VanderWeele T, Moreno TA, et al. The impact of directâ toâ consumer personal genomic testing on perceived risk of breast, prostate, colorectal, and lung cancer: findings from the PGen study. BMC Med Genomics. 2015; 8 ( 1 ): 63.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWare JE, Gandek B. Overview of the SFâ 36 health survey and the international quality of life assessment (IQOLA) project. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998; 51 ( 11 ): 903 â 912.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCarere DA, Kraft P, Kaphingst KA, Roberts JS, Green RC. Consumers report lower confidence in their genetics knowledge following directâ toâ consumer personal genomic testing. Genet Med. 2016; 18 ( 1 ): 65 â 72.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCritchley C, Nicol D, Otlowski M, Chalmers D. Public reaction to directâ toâ consumer online genetic tests: comparing attitudes, trust and intentions across commercial and conventional providers. Public Underst Sci. 2015; 24 ( 6 ): 731 â 750.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceJanssens S, Kalokairinou L, Chokoshvilli D, et al. Attitudes of cystic fibrosis patients and their parents towards directâ toâ consumer genetic testing for carrier status. Personalized Med. 2015; 12 ( 2 ): 99 â 107.
dc.identifier.citedreferencePerez GK, Cruess DG, Cruess S, et al. Attitudes toward directâ toâ consumer advertisements and online genetic testing among highâ risk women participating in a hereditary cancer clinic. J Health Commun. 2011; 16 ( 6 ): 607 â 628.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHiraki S, Chen CA, Roberts JS, Cupples LA, and Green RC Perceptions of familial risk in those seeking a genetic risk assessment for Alzheimer’s disease. J Genet Couns. 2009; 18 ( 2 ): 130.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMeisel SF, Carere DA, Wardle J, et al. Explaining, not just predicting, drives interest in personal genomics. Genome Med. 2015; 7 ( 1 ): 74.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLaboratory developed tests. US Food and Drug Administration website. www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/ProductsandMedicalProcedures/InVitroDiagnostics/ucm407296.htm. Last updated January 13, 2017. Accessed March 6, 2017.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBurstein P. The impact of public opinion on public policy: a review and an agenda. Polit Res Q. 2003; 56 ( 1 ): 29 â 40.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFrance D. How to Survive a Plague: The Inside Story of How Citizens and Science Tamed AIDS. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf; 2016.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBrennan Z. California governor vetoes rightâ toâ try bill, points to FDA compassionate use program. Regulatory Affairs Professionals Society website. www.raps.org/Regulatory-Focus/News/2015/10/12/23371/California-Governor-Vetoes-Right-to-Try-Bill-Points-to-FDA-Compassionate-Use-Program/#sthash.QgkztMfu.dpuf. Published October 12, 2015. Accessed March 6, 2017.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceTavernise S. New FDA guidelines ease access to abortion pill. New York Times. March 30, 2016.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGusmano MK. FDA decisions and public deliberation: challenges and opportunities. Public Adm Rev. 2013; 73 ( s1 ): S115 â S126.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGortler D. FDA’s drug approval process should be based on science, not public opinion. STAT. June 2, 2016. www.statnews.com/2016/06/02/fda-duchenne-muscular-dystrophy. Accessed March 6, 2017.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGornick MC, Scherer AM, Sutton EJ, et al. Effect of public deliberation on attitudes toward return of secondary results in genomic sequencing. J Genet Couns. 2017; 26 ( 1 ): 122 â 132.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHogarth S, Javitt G, Melzer D. The current landscape for directâ toâ consumer genetic testing: legal, ethical, and policy issues. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet. 2008; 9: 161 â 182.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceEvans JP, Green RC. Direct to consumer genetic testing: Avoiding a culture war. Genet Med. 2009; 11 ( 8 ): 568 â 569.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLautenbach DM, Christensen KD, Sparks JA, Green RC. Communicating genetic risk information for common disorders in the era of genomic medicine. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet. 2013; 14: 491 â 513.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMcGuire AL, Burke W. An unwelcome side effect of directâ toâ consumer personal genome testing: raiding the medical commons. JAMA. 2008; 300 ( 22 ): 2669 â 2671.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCaulfield T, Ries NM, Ray PN, Shuman C, Wilson B. Directâ toâ consumer genetic testing: good, bad or benign ? Clin Genet. 2010; 77 ( 2 ): 101 â 105.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceEng C, Sharp RR. Bioethical and clinical dilemmas of directâ toâ consumer personal genomic testing: the problem of misattributed equivalence. Sci Transl Med. 2010; 2 ( 17 ): 17cm15.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGollust SE, Wilfond BS, Hull SC. Directâ toâ consumer sales of genetic services on the internet. Genet Med. 2003; 5 ( 4 ): 332 â 337.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRoberts JS, Ostergren J. Directâ toâ consumer genetic testing and personal genomics services: a review of recent empirical studies. Curr Genet Med Rep. 2013; 1 ( 3 ): 182 â 200.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCarpenter D. Groups, the media, agency waiting costs, and FDA drug approval. Am J Polit Sci. 2002; 46 ( 3 ): 490 â 505.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGollust SE, Apse K, Fuller BP, Miller PS, Biesecker BB. Community involvement in developing policies for genetic testing: assessing the interests and experiences of individuals affected by genetic conditions. Am J Public Health. 2005; 95 ( 1 ): 35 â 41.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSecretary’s Advisory Committee on Genetics, Health, and Society. US System of Oversight of Genetic Testing: A Response to the Charge of the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Washington, DC: US Department of Health & Human Services; 2008. osp.od.nih.gov/sites/default/files/SACGHS_oversight_report.pdf. Accessed March 6, 2017.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSecretary’s Advisory Committee on Genetics, Health, and Society. Directâ toâ Consumer Genetic Testing. Washington, DC: US Department of Health & Human Services; 2010. auth.osp.od.nih.gov/sites/default/files/SACGHS_DTC_Report_2010.pdf. Accessed March 6, 2017.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceUS Government Accountability Office (GAO). Directâ toâ Consumer Genetic Tests: Misleading Results Are Further Complicated by Deceptive Marketing and Other Questionable Practices. Washington, DC: GAO; 2010. www.gao.gov/assets/130/125079.pdf. Accessed March 6, 2017.
dc.identifier.citedreferencePollack A. Walgreens delays selling personal genetic test kit. New York Times. May 12, 2010.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSpectorâ Bagdady K, Pike E. Consuming genomics: regulating directâ toâ consumer genetic and genomic information. Nebr Law Rev. 2014; 92: 677 â 745.
dc.identifier.citedreference23andMe. 23andMe takes first step toward FDA clearance. 23andMeBlog. blog.23andme.com/news/23andmeâ takesâ firstâ stepâ towardâ fdaâ clearance. Published July 30, 2012. Accessed March 6, 2017.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFDA warning letter from Alberto Gutierrez, Dir., Office of In Vitro Diagnostics and Radiological Health, Ctr. for Devices & Radiological Health, Food & Drug Admin., US Dep’t of Health & Human Services, to Ann[e] Wojcicki, CEO, 23andMe Inc. November 22, 2013. www.fda.gov/iceci/enforcementactions/warningletters/2013/ucm376296.htm. Accessed March 6, 2017.
dc.identifier.citedreference23andMe. A Note to Our Customers Regarding the FDA. 23andMeBlog. blog.23andme.com/news/aâ noteâ toâ ourâ customersâ regardingâ theâ fda. Published February 19, 2015. Accessed March 6, 2017.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFinney Rutten LJ, Gollust SE, Naveed S, Moser RP. Increasing public awareness of directâ toâ consumer genetic tests: health care access, internet use, and population density correlates. J Cancer Epidemiol. 2012; 2012: 309109.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGoddard KA, Duquette D, Zlot A, et al. Public awareness and use of directâ toâ consumer genetic tests: results from 3 state populationâ based surveys, 2006. Am J Public Health. 2009; 99 ( 3 ): 442 â 445.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGoddard KA, Moore C, Ottman D, Szegda KL, Bradley L, Khoury MJ. Awareness and use of directâ toâ consumer nutrigenomic tests, United States, 2006. Genet Med. 2007; 9 ( 8 ): 510 â 517.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKolor K, Liu T, St Pierre J, Khoury M. Health care provider and consumer awareness, perceptions, and use of directâ toâ consumer personal genomic tests, United States, 2008. Genet Med. 2009; 11 ( 8 ): 595.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAlmeling R, Gadarian SK. Public opinion on policy issues in genetics and genomics. Genet Med. 2014; 16 ( 6 ): 491 â 494.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMcGuire AL, Diaz CM, Wang T, Hilsenbeck SG. Social networkersâ attitudes toward directâ toâ consumer personal genome testing. Am J Bioeth. 2009; 9 ( 6â 7 ): 3 â 10.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMcBride CM, Alford SH, Reid RJ, Larson EB, Baxevanis AD, Brody LC. Characteristics of users of online personalized genomic risk assessments: implications for physicianâ patient interactions. Genet Med. 2009; 11 ( 8 ): 582 â 587.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGollust SE, Gordon ES, Zayac C, et al. Motivations and perceptions of early adopters of personalized genomics: perspectives from research participants. Public Health Genomics. 2012; 15 ( 1 ): 22 â 30.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBloss CS, Ornowski L, Silver E, et al. Consumer perceptions of directâ toâ consumer personalized genomic risk assessments. Genet Med. 2010; 12 ( 9 ): 556 â 566.
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Name:
milq12262.pdf
Size:
269.4KB
Format:
PDF
View/Open
Name:
milq12262_am.pdf
Size:
830.9KB
Format:
PDF
View/Open

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.