Attitudes towards Social Networking and Sharing Behaviors among Consumers of Direct-to-Consumer Personal Genomics
Abstract
:1. Introduction
The notion of the molecular family is based on the cultural expectation that a biological entity can determine emotional connections and social bonds—that genetics can link us to each other and somehow preserve a reliable model for a family. Since it is beyond culture, outside of time, DNA seems to be of durable or permanent significance [2].
2. Methods
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Demographic Characteristics
Demographic and health information seeking characteristics | Sample Characteristic |
---|---|
Gender (% female) | 50.0 |
Age (year) | |
Mean | 43.6 ± 14.2 |
Range | 23–72 |
White race (% of Sample) | 80.3% |
Household Income ($) | |
Median | 50 k–99 k |
<50 k | 31.6% |
50 k–99 k | 29.8% |
100 k–149 k | 22.8% |
150 k–199 k | 3.5% |
200 k–249 k | 1.8% |
250 k–299 k | 3.5% |
>300 k | 7.0% |
Education | |
Median | Masters degree |
High School or GED | 0.0% |
Some college | 5.0% |
2-year college graduate | 5.0% |
4-year college graduate | 33.3% |
Master’s degree | 31.7% |
Professional Degree | 21.7% |
Other | 3.3% |
Background in genetics | |
Median | High School Course |
None | 47.5% |
High school course | 20.3% |
College course(s) | 22.0% |
Degree in genetics | 1.7% |
Professional work in genetics | 11.9% |
Health-related occupation (% of sample) | 18.30% |
Self-reported health status rating | |
Median | Very good |
Excellent | 31.7% |
Very good | 43.3% |
Good | 21.7% |
Poor | 3.3% |
Very Poor | 0.0% |
Insurance Status (% of sample insured) | 80.6% |
Regular Physician (% of sample who has a regular physician) | 78.3% |
Last time participant had a routine check-up | |
Median | within the last year |
Within the past year | 70.0% |
Within the past two years | 18.3% |
Within the past 5 years | 6.7% |
5 or more years ago | 5.0% |
How much did you pay for your 23and Me Kit? | |
Median | $199 |
Free | 5.0% |
$99 | 36.7% |
$199 | 16.7% |
$399 | 16.7% |
$999 | 3.3% |
Other | 21.7% |
3.2. Social Networking and Sharing of Genetic Information
Social Networking and Personal Genetic Testing | |
---|---|
Shared personal genetic information on Facebook | 45.0% |
Downloaded their raw data | 52.7% |
Verbally shared genetic results | 85.5% |
Shared 23andMe Username and Password | 29.1% |
Emailed genetic results to others | 52.7% |
Number of people participants met or reconnected with by sharing personal genetic test results | |
Median | >10 |
No one | 20.8% |
1 | 1.9% |
<5 | 13.2% |
5–10 | 13.2% |
>10 | 50.9% |
Number of people participants consulted about genetic testing results | |
Median | <5 |
No one | 14.8% |
1 | 14.8% |
<5 | 40.7% |
5–10 | 13.0% |
>10 | 16.7% |
3.3. Attitudes towards Privacy
Strongly/Agree | Neutral | Strongly/Disagree | |
---|---|---|---|
I am comfortable shopping and/or conducting financial transactions online. | 98.10% | 0.00% | 1.90% |
I have global concerns about confidentiality of personal data. | 50.00% | 18.50% | 31.50% |
I believe that privacy is never guaranteed when interacting online. | 85.19% | 9.26% | 5.56% |
I am concerned that my employer will learn about my personal genetic test results. | 11.30% | 17.00% | 71.70% |
I believe that the privacy of my personal genetic information may be breached in the future. | 51.80% | 24.10% | 24.10% |
I do not want to learn genetic information that could potentially jeopardize my family’s confidentiality. | 17.00% | 22.60% | 60.40% |
I am concerned that obtaining my personal genetic information will have negative implications on my ability to obtain health, life and/or disability insurance. | 30.19% | 15.09% | 54.72% |
I feel confident that my personal genetic information will NOT be shared with others without my permission. | 64.80% | 22.20% | 13.00% |
I believe that sharing my personal genetic information for biomedical research is an important individual responsibility. | 81.50% | 11.10% | 7.50% |
3.4. Limitations of the Study
4. Conclusions
Acknowledgements
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Manson, N.C. What is genetic information, and why is it significant? A contextual, contrastive approach. J. Appl. Philos. 2006, 23, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nelkin, D.; Lindee, M.S. The DNA Mystique: The Gene as a Cultural Icon; University of Michigan Press: Ann Arbor, MI, USA, 2004; p. 60. [Google Scholar]
- McGowan, M.L.; Fishman, J.R.; Lambrix, M.A. Personal genomics and individual identities: Motivations and moral imperatives of early users. New Genet. Soc. 2010, 29, 261–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Helgason, A.; Stafansson, K. The past, present and future of direct-to-consumer genetic tests. Dialogues Clin. Neurosci. 2010, 12, 61–68. [Google Scholar]
- McBride, C.M.; Wade, C.H.; Kaphingst, K.A. Consumers’ views of direct-to-consumer genetic information. Annu. Rev. Genomics Hum. Genet. 2010, 11, 427–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Foster, M.W.; Sharp, R.R. Out of sequence: How consumer genomics could displace clinical genetics. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2008, 9, e419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Evans, J.P.; Burke, W.; Khoury, M. The rules remain the same for genomic medicine: The case against “reverse genetic exceptionalism”. Genet. Med. 2010, 12, 342–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hogarth, S.; Javitt, G.; Melzer, D. The current landscape for direct-to-consumer genetic testing: Legal, ethical and policy issues. Annu. Rev. Genomics Hum. Genet. 2008, 9, 161–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Frueh, F.W.; Greely, H.T.; Green, R.C.; Hogarth, S.; Siegel, S. The future of direct-to-consumer clinical genetic tests. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2011, 12, 511–515. [Google Scholar]
- Caulfield, T.; McGuire, A.L. Direct-to-consumer genetic testing: Perceptions, problems, and policy responses. Annu. Rev. Med. 2012, 63, 23–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lachance, C.R.; Erby, L.A.; Ford, B.M.; Allen, V.C., Jr.; Kaphingst, K.A. Informational content, literacy demands and usability of websites offering health-related genetic tests directly to consumers. Genet. Med. 2010, 12, 304–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Geransar, R.; Einsiedel, E. Evaluating online direct-to-consumer marketing of genetic tests: Informed choices or buyer beware? Genet. Test. 2008, 12, 13–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kuehn, B.M. Inconsistent results, inaccurate claims plague direct-to-consumer gene tests. JAMA 2010, 304, 1313–1315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Annas, J.P.; Giovanni, M.A.; Murray, M.F. Risks of presymptomatic direct-to-consumer genetic testing. N. Engl. J. Med. 2010, 363, 1100–1101. [Google Scholar]
- Imai, K.; Kricka, L.J.; Fortina, P. Concordance study of 3 direct-to-consumer genetic testing services. Clin. Chem. 2011, 57, 518–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ng, P.C.; Murray, S.S.; Levy, S.; Venter, J.C. An agenda for personalized medicine. Nature 2009, 461, 724–726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dyo, R.A. Cascade effects of medical technology. Annu. Rev. Public Health 2002, 23, 23–44. [Google Scholar]
- McGuire, A.L.; Burke, W. Health system implications of direct-to-consumer personal genome testing. Public Health Genom. 2011, 14, 53–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bloss, C.S.; Ornowski, L.; Silver, E.; Cargill, M.; Vanier, V.; Schork, N.J.; Topol, E.J. Consumer perceptions of direct-to-consumer personalized genomic risk assessments. Genet. Med. 2010, 12, 556–566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bloss, C.S.; Wineingar, N.; Darst, B.F.; Schork, N.J.; Topol, E.J. Impact of direct-to-consumer genomic testing at long term follow-up. J. Med. Genet. 2013, 50, 393–400. [Google Scholar]
- Gollust, S.E.; Gordon, E.S.; Zayac, C.; Griffin, G.; Christman, M.F.; Pyeritz, R.E.; Wawak, L.; Bernhardt, B.A. Motivation and perceptions of early adoptors of personalized genomics: Perspectives from research participants. Public Health Genom. 2012, 15, 22–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leighton, J.W.; Valverde, K.; Bernhardt, B.A. The general public’s understanding and perception of direct-to-consumer genetic test results. Public Health Genom. 2012, 15, 11–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vernez, S.; Salari, K.; Ormond, K.E.; Lee, S.S.J. The ethics of personal genome testing: Student experiences with genotyping in the classroom. Genet. Med. 2013, 5, e24. [Google Scholar]
- Reid, R.J.; McBride, C.M.; Alford, S.H.; Price, C.; Baxevanis, A.D.; Brody, L.C.; Larson, E.B. Association between health-service use and multiplex genetic testing. Genet. Med. 2012, 14, 852–859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, S.S.-J.; Crawley, L. Research 2.0: Social networking and direct-to-consumer (DTC) genomics. Am. J. Bioeth. 2009, 9, 35–44. [Google Scholar]
- Dolgin, E. Personalized investigation. Nat. Med. 2010, 16, 953–955. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, S.S.-J. Social Networking and Personal Genomics Study. Available online: http://bioethics.stanford.edu/research/SocialNetworkingandPersonalGenomics.html (accessed on 20 November 2012).
- SurveyMonkey, Inc. Available online: http://www.surveymonkey.com/ (accessed on 20 September 2011).
- McGuire, A.; Diaz, C.M.; Wang, T.; Hilsenbeck, S.G. “Social networkers” attitudes towards direct-to-consumer genome testing. Am. J. Bioeth. 2009, 9, 3–10. [Google Scholar]
- O’Neill, S.C.; DeMarco, T.; Peshkin, B.N.; Rogers, S.; Rispoli, J.; Brown, K.; Valdimarsdottir, H.; Schwartz, M.D. Tolerance for uncertainty and perceived risk among women receiving uninformative BRCA1/2 test results. Am. J. Med. Genet. C 2006, 142, 251–259. [Google Scholar]
- Black, A.B.; Baker, M. The impact of parent advocacy groups, the Internet, and social networking on rare diseases: The IDEA League and IDEA League United Kingdome example. Epilepsia 2011, 52, 102–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hamilton, A. Invention of the year: 1. The retail DNA test. Time Magazine. 2008. Available online: http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1852747_1854493,00html (accessed on 30 October 2008).
- Cushman, R.; Froomkin, A.M.; Cava, A.; Abril, P.; Goodman, K.W. Ethical, legal and social issues for personal health records and applications. J. Biomed. Inform. 2010, 43, S51–S55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
© 2013 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/).
Share and Cite
Lee, S.S.-J.; Vernez, S.L.; Ormond, K.E.; Granovetter, M. Attitudes towards Social Networking and Sharing Behaviors among Consumers of Direct-to-Consumer Personal Genomics. J. Pers. Med. 2013, 3, 275-287. https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm3040275
Lee SS-J, Vernez SL, Ormond KE, Granovetter M. Attitudes towards Social Networking and Sharing Behaviors among Consumers of Direct-to-Consumer Personal Genomics. Journal of Personalized Medicine. 2013; 3(4):275-287. https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm3040275
Chicago/Turabian StyleLee, Sandra Soo-Jin, Simone L. Vernez, K.E. Ormond, and Mark Granovetter. 2013. "Attitudes towards Social Networking and Sharing Behaviors among Consumers of Direct-to-Consumer Personal Genomics" Journal of Personalized Medicine 3, no. 4: 275-287. https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm3040275
APA StyleLee, S. S.-J., Vernez, S. L., Ormond, K. E., & Granovetter, M. (2013). Attitudes towards Social Networking and Sharing Behaviors among Consumers of Direct-to-Consumer Personal Genomics. Journal of Personalized Medicine, 3(4), 275-287. https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm3040275