Tensions in the field have emerged over how best to communicate to the public about genomic discoveries in an era of direct-to-consumer (DTC) DNA testing services available through the Internet. Concerns over what the psychological and behavioral response might be to a nuanced, multiplex risk message have spurred some to offer caution in communicating to the public about personalized risk until the necessary research has been completed on how to communicate effectively. The popularization of DTC testing services, along with a spreading Internet culture on transparency for personal data, may make ‘waiting to communicate’ a moot point. To steer communication efforts in the midst of increasing access to personal genomic information, a self-regulation framework is presented. The framework emphasizes the importance of presenting a coherent message in all communiqués about public health genomics. Coherence should be based on an evidence-based model of how the public processes information about health conditions and an emphasis on risk-to-action links. Recommendations from the President’s Council of Advisors for Science and Technology are reviewed as a way of identifying targets of opportunity for structured communications both within the healthcare system and in the broader external ecosystem of publicly available health information technologies.

Keywords:
Direct-to-consumer advertising, Health communication, Internet, Self-regulation
1.
Smerecnik CM, Mesters I, de Vries NK, de Vries H: Alerting the general population to genetic risks: the value of health messages communicating the existence of genetic risk factors for public health promotion. Health Psychol 2009;28:734–745.
2.
Khoury MJ, Thrasher JF, Burke W, Gettig EA, Fridinger F, Jackson R: Challenges in communicating genetics: a public health approach. Genet Med 2000;2:198–202.
3.
McBride CM, Koehly LM, Sanderson SC, Kaphingst KA: The behavioral response to personalized genetic information: will genetic risk profiles motivate individuals and families to choose more healthful behaviors? Annu Rev Public Health 2010;31:89–103.
4.
Khoury MJ, Coates RJ, Evans JP: Evidence-based classification of recommendations on use of genomic tests in clinical practice: dealing with insufficient evidence. Genet Med 2010;12:680–683.
5.
National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute working group, Fabsitz RR, McGuire A, Sharp RR, Puggal M, Beskow LM, Biesecker LG, Bookman E, Burke W, Burchard EG, Church G, Clayton EW, Eckfeldt JH, Fernandez CV, Fisher R, Fullerton SM, Gabriel S, Gachupin F, James C, Jarvik GP, Kittles R, Leib JR, O’Donnell C, O’Rourke PP, Rodriguez LL, Schully SD, Shuldiner AR, Sze RK, Thakuria JV, Wolf SM, Burke GL: Ethical and practical guidelines for reporting genetic research results to study participants: updated guidelines from a National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute working group. Circ Cardiovasc Genet 2010;3:574–580.
6.
Croyle RT, Lerman C: Risk communication in genetic testing for cancer susceptibility. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 1999;25:59–66.
7.
Kiesler S (ed): Culture of the Internet. Mahwah, Psychology Press, 1997.
8.
Markoff J: What the Dormouse Said. New York, Penguin, 2005.
9.
Fox S: Health Topics: 80% of Internet Users Look for Health Information Online. Washington, DC, Pew Research Center, 2011.
10.
McBride CM, Wade CH, Kaphingst KA: Consumers’ views of direct-to-consumer genetic information. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet 2010;11:427–446.
11.
deBronkart D, Kuraitis V, Kibbe DC: Gimme My Damn Data! The Health Care Blog, May 7, 2010.
12.
Stodden V: Data Transparency in Health. Open Government Research and Development Summit. Washington, DC, National Archives, 2011.
13.
Pew Research Center: Internet Adoption, 1995–2011. Pew Foundation 2011. http://www.pewinternet.org (accessed September 5, 2011).
14.
Rutten LF, Moser RP, Beckjord EB, Hesse BW, Croyle RT: Cancer Communication: Health Information National Trends Survey. Washington, DC, National Cancer Institute, 2007. NIH Pub. No. 07-6214.
15.
Hesse BW, Moser RP, Rutten LJ: Surveys of physicians and electronic health information. N Engl J Med 2010;362:859–860.
16.
Hobbes Zakon R: Hobbes’ Internet Timeline 10.1. 2010. http://www.zakon.org/robert/internet/timeline/ (accessed September 5, 2011).
17.
Hesse BW: Enhancing consumer involvement in health care; in Parker JC, Thornson E (eds): Health Communication in the New Media Landscape. New York, Springer Publishing Company, 2008, pp 119–149.
18.
Rodriguez NE: Exactly How Much Are the Times A-Changing? Newsweek, July 26, 2010, p 56.
19.
Hesse BW, Hansen D, Finholt T, Munson S, Kellogg W, Thomas JC: Social participation in Health 2.0. Computer 2010;43:45–52.
20.
Van De Belt TH, Engelen LJ, Berben SA, Schoonhoven L: Definition of Health 2.0 and Medicine 2.0: a systematic review. J Med Internet Res 2010;12:e18.
21.
Chou WY, Hunt Y, Folkers A, Augustson E: Cancer survivorship in the age of YouTube and social media: a narrative analysis. J Med Internet Res 2011;13:e7.
22.
Bender JL, Jimenez-Marroquin MC, Jadad AR: Seeking support on facebook: a content analysis of breast cancer groups. J Med Internet Res 2011;13:e16.
23.
Anderson IK: The uses and gratifications of online care pages: a study of CaringBridge. Health Commun 2011;26:546–559.
24.
Baptist AP, Thompson M, Grossman KS, Mohammed L, Sy A, Sanders GM: Social media, text messaging, and email-preferences of asthma patients between 12 and 40 years old. J Asthma 2011;48:824–830.
25.
Tung JY, Do CB, Hinds DA, Kiefer AK, Macpherson JM, Chowdry AB, Francke U, Naughton BT, Mountain JL, Wojcicki A, Eriksson N: Efficient replication of over 180 genetic associations with self-reported medical data. PLoS One 2011;6:e23473.
26.
Eng TR, Gustafson DH; Science Panel on Interactive Communication and Health: Wired for health and well-being: the emergence of interactive health communication. Washington, DC, US Department of Health and Human Services, US Government and Printing Office, April 1999.
27.
Sonnenberg FA: Health information on the Internet. Opportunities and pitfalls. Arch Intern Med 1997;157:151–152.
28.
Kemper DW: Trust on the health Internet. Manag Care Q 2001;9:9–18.
29.
Jadad AR, Gagliardi A: Rating health information on the Internet: navigating to knowledge or to Babel? JAMA 1998;279:611–614.
30.
Shenk D: Data Smog: Surviving the Information Glut, ed 1. San Francisco, Harper Edge, 1997.
31.
Werner RM, Asch DA: The unintended consequences of publicly reporting quality information. JAMA 2005;293:1239–1244.
32.
Ivanitskaya L, Brookins-Fisher J, O Boyle I, Vibbert D, Erofeev D, Fulton L: Dirt cheap and without prescription: how susceptible are young US consumers to purchasing drugs from rogue internet pharmacies? J Med Internet Res 2010;12:e11.
33.
Ribisl KM, Williams RS, Gizlice Z, Herring AH: Effectiveness of state and federal government agreements with major credit card and shipping companies to block illegal Internet cigarette sales. PLoS One 2011;6:e16754.
34.
Liang BA, Mackey T: Searching for safety: addressing search engine, website, and provider accountability for illicit online drug sales. Am J Law Med 2009;35:125–184.
35.
Shani S: E-commerce of pharmaceuticals (in Hebrew). Harefuah 2003;142:372–376, 396–397.
36.
Chew C, Eysenbach G: Pandemics in the age of Twitter: content analysis of Tweets during the 2009 H1N1 outbreak. PLoS One 2010;5:e14118.
37.
Academy for Educational Development: Genetic Testing Marketing and Communications: A Review of Literature, 1998–2008. Washington, DC, Academy for Educational Development, 2009.
38.
Crocco AG, Villasis-Keever M, Jadad AR: Analysis of cases of harm associated with use of health information on the internet. JAMA 2002;287:2869–2871.
39.
Surowiecki J: The Wisdom of Crowds: Why the Many are Smarter than the Few and How Collective Wisdom Shapes Business, Economies, Societies, and Nations, ed 1. New York, Doubleday, 2004.
40.
Wicks P, Massagli M, Frost J, Brownstein C, Okun S, Vaughan T, Bradley R, Heywood J: Sharing health data for better outcomes on PatientsLikeMe. J Med Internet Res 2010;12:e19.
41.
Meier A, Lyons EJ, Frydman G, Forlenza M, Rimer BK: How cancer survivors provide support on cancer-related Internet mailing lists. J Med Internet Res 2007;9:e12.
42.
Hesse BW, O’Connell M, Augustson EM, Chou WY, Shaikh AR, Finney Rutten LJ: Realizing the promise of Web 2.0: engaging community intelligence. J Health Commun 2011;16(suppl 1):10–31.
43.
Health Information National Trends Survey Online Database. National Institutes of Health, 2011. http://hints.cancer.gov/.
44.
Leighton JW, Valverde K, Bernhardt BA: The general public’s understanding and perception of direct-to-consumer genetic test results. Public Health Genomics 2012;15:11–21.
45.
Hesse BW, Nelson DE, Kreps GL, Croyle RT, Arora NK, Rimer BK, Viswanath K: Trust and sources of health information: the impact of the Internet and its implications for health care providers: findings from the first Health Information National Trends Survey. Arch Intern Med 2005;165:2618–2624.
46.
Gollust SE, Gordon ES, Zayac C, Griffin G, Christman MF, Pyeritz RE, Wawak L, Bernhardt BA: Motivations and perceptions of early adopters of personalized genomics: perspectives from research participants. Public Health Genomics 2012;15:22–30.
47.
Eysenbach G: From intermediation to disintermediation and apomediation: new models for consumers to access and assess the credibility of health information in the age of Web2.0. Stud Health Technol Inform 2007;129(Pt 1):162–166.
48.
Eysenbach G: Medicine 2.0: social networking, collaboration, participation, apomediation, and openness. J Med Internet Res 2008;10:e22.
49.
Cameron LD, Leventhal H: The Self-Regulation of Health and Illness Behaviour. London, Routledge, 2003.
50.
Glanz K, Rimer BK, Viswanath K: Health Behavior and Health Education: Theory, Research, and Practice, ed 4. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass, 2008.
51.
Masley SA, Gillanders DT, Simpson SG, Taylor MA: A systematic review of the evidence base for schema therapy. Cogn Behav Ther 2011, E-pub ahead of print.
52.
Leventhal H, Weinman J, Leventhal EA, Phillips LA: Health psychology: the search for pathways between behavior and health. Annu Rev Psychol 2008;59:477–505.
53.
Leventhal H, Safer MA, Panagis DM: The impact of communications on the self-regulation of health beliefs, decisions, and behavior. Health Educ Q 1983;10:3–29.
54.
Leventhal H, Watts JC, Pagano F: Effects of fear and instructions on how to cope with danger. J Pers Soc Psychol 1967;6:313–321.
55.
Cameron LD, Marteau TM, Brown PM, Klein WM, Sherman KA: Communication strategies for enhancing understanding of the behavioral implications of genetic and biomarker tests for disease risk: the role of coherence. J Behav Med 2011, E-pub ahead of print.
56.
Veenstra DL, Roth JA, Garrison LP Jr, Ramsey SD, Burke W: A formal risk-benefit framework for genomic tests: facilitating the appropriate translation of genomics into clinical practice. Genet Med 2010;12:686–693.
57.
Burke W, Burton H, Hall AE, Karmali M, Khoury MJ, Knoppers B, Meslin EM, Stanley F, Wright CF, Zimmern RL; Ickworth Group: Extending the reach of public health genomics: what should be the agenda for public health in an era of genome-based and ‘personalized’ medicine? Genet Med 2010;12:785–791.
58.
Ng PC, Murray SS, Levy S, Venter JC: An agenda for personalized medicine. Nature 2009;461:724–726.
59.
Collins FS: NIH Medline Plus: Transforming discovery into health. National Institutes of Health and the Friends of the National Library of Medicine 2010;5:2–3.
60.
Collins FS: NIH in the 21st Century: The Director’s Perspective. Subcommittee on Health; Committee on Energy and Commerce. Washington, DC, National Institutes of Health, 2010, pp 1–11.
61.
Zerhouni E: Extracting knowledge from science: a conversation with Elias Zerhouni. Interview by Barbara J. Culliton. Health Aff (Millwood) 2006;25:w94–w103.
62.
Institute of Medicine (US), Committee on Quality of Health Care in America: Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. Washington, DC, National Academy Press, 2001.
63.
Yong PL: The Healthcare Imperative: Lowering Costs and Improving Outcomes. Workshop Series Summary. Washington, DC, The National Academies, 2010.
64.
Wagner EH, Bennett SM, Austin BT, Greene SM, Schaefer JK, Vonkorff M: Finding common ground: patient-centeredness and evidence-based chronic illness care. J Altern Complement Med 2005;11(suppl 1):S7–S15.
65.
Olsen LA, Saunders RS, McGinnis JM: Patients Charting the Course: Citizen Engagement in the Learning Health System. Washington, DC, The National Academies, 2011.
66.
Venter JC: Multiple personal genomes await. Nature 2010;464:676–677.
67.
President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology: Realizing the Full Potential of Health Information Technology to Improve Healthcare for Americans: The Path Forward. Washington, DC, The White House, 2010.
68.
President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology: Designing a Digital Future: Federally Funded Research and Development in Networking and Information Technology. Washington, DC, The White House, 2010.
69.
Cappella JN: Communicating Genetic Risk: Efficacy, Type of Risk, and Narrative Forms. Rockville, MD, Centers of Excellence in Cancer Communication Research. 2010.
70.
Olsen LA, Saunders RS, McGinnis JM: Patients Charting the Course: Citizen Engagement in the Learning Health System. Washington, DC, The National Academies, 2011.
71.
Goetz T: The Decision Tree: Taking Control of Your Health in the New Era of Personalized Medicine. New York, Rodale, Distributed to the trade by Macmillan, 2010.
© 2012 S. Karger AG, Basel
2012
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.