Aim: The aim of this study was to evaluate current direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic customers' ability to interpret and comprehend test results and to determine if honest brokers are needed.Method: One hundred and twenty-two customers of the DTC genetic testing company 23andMe were polled in an online survey. The subjects were asked about their personal test results and to interpret the results of two mock test cases (type 2 diabetes and multiple sclerosis), where results were translated into disease probability for an individual compared to the public. Results: When asked to evaluate the risk, 72.1% correctly assessed the first case and 77% were correct on the second case. Only 23.8% of those surveyed were able to interpret both cases correctly. χ2 and logistic regression were used to interpret the results. Participants who took the time to read the DTC test-provided supplemental material were 3.93 times (p = 0.040) more likely to correctly interpret the test results than those who did not. The odds for correctly interpreting the test cases were 3.289 times (p = 0.011) higher for those who made more than USD 50,000 than those who made less. Survey results were compared to the Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS) phase 4 cycle 3 data to evaluate national trends. Conclusions: Most of the subjects were able to correctly interpret the test cases, yet a majority did not share their results with a health-care professional. As the market for DTC genetic testing grows, test comprehension will become more critical. Involving more health professionals in this process may be necessary to ensure proper interpretations.

Collins FS: The Language of Life: DNA and the Revolution in Personalized Medicine. New York, Harper Perennial, 2010.
Weston AD, Hood L: Systems biology, proteomics, and the future of health care: toward predictive, preventative, and personalized medicine. J Proteome Res 2004;3:179-196.
Jain KK: Personalized medicine. Curr Opin Mol Ther 2002;4:548-558.
Zimmern RL, Khoury MJ: The impact of genomics on public health practice: the case for change. Public Health Genomics 2012;15:118-124.
Khoury MJ, Berg A, Coates R, Evans J, Teutsch SM, Bradley LA: The evidence dilemma in genomic medicine. Health Aff (Millwood) 2008;27:1600-1611.
Khoury MJ, Bowen MS, Burke W, Coates RJ, Dowling NF, Evans JP, Reyes M, St Pierre J: Current priorities for public health practice in addressing the role of human genomics in improving population health. Am J Prev Med 2011;40:486-493.
Manolio TA, Brooks LD, Collins FS: A HapMap harvest of insights into the genetics of common disease. J Clin Invest 2008;118:1590-1605.
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.
Cornel MC, van El CG, Borry P: The challenge of implementing genetic tests with clinical utility while avoiding unsound applications. J Community Genet 2014;5:7-12.
Hunter DJ, Khoury MJ, Drazen JM: Letting the genome out of the bottle - will we get our wish? N Engl J Med 2008;358:105-107.
Lachance CR, Erby LA, Ford BM, Allen VC, Kaphingst KA: Informational content, literacy demands, and usability of websites offering health-related genetic tests directly to consumers. Genet Med 2010;12:304-312.
Nielsen-Bohlman L, Panzer AM, Kindig DA: Health Literacy: A Prescription to End Confusion. Washington, National Academies Press, 2004.
Davis TC, Wolf MS: Health literacy: implications for family medicine. Fam Med 2004;36:595-598.
Sørensen K, Van den Broucke S, Fullam J, Doyle G, Pelikan J, Slonska Z, Brand H: Health literacy and public health: a systematic review and integration of definitions and models. BMC Public Health 2012;12:80.
Commission of the European Communities: Together for Health: A Strategic Approach for the EU 2008-2013. Brussels, European Commission, 2007.
Kutner M, Greenberg E, Baer J: A First Look at the Literacy of America's Adults in the 21st Century. NCES 2006-470. National Center for Education Statistics, 2006.
Leighton J, Valverde K, Bernhardt B: The general public's understanding and perception of direct-to-consumer genetic test results. Public Health Genomics 2011;15:11-21.
Kaufman DJ, Bollinger JM, Dvoskin RL, Scott JA: Risky business: risk perception and the use of medical services among customers of DTC personal genetic testing. J Genet Couns 2012;21:413-422.
Dvoskin R: GPPC Releases Updated List of DTC Genetic Testing Companies. August 2011.
Ostergren JE, Gornick MC, Carere DA, Kalia SS, Uhlmann WR, Ruffin MT, Mountain JL, Green RC, Roberts JS; PGen Study Group: How well do customers of direct-to-consumer personal genomic testing services comprehend genetic test results? Findings from the Impact of Personal Genomics Study. Public Health Genomics 2015;18:216-224.
Poulsen P, Kyvik KO, Vaag A, Beck-Nielsen H: Heritability of type II (non-insulin-dependent) diabetes mellitus and abnormal glucose tolerance - a population-based twin study. Diabetologia 1999;42:139-145.
Hawkes C: Twin studies in medicine - what do they tell us? QJM 1997;90:311-321.
DeNavas-Walt C, Proctor BD, Smith JC; US Census Bureau: Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2012. Current Population Reports, P60-245. Washington, US Government Printing Office, 2013.
National Cancer Institute: Health Information National Trends Survey 4 (HINTS 4). Cycle 3 Methodology Report. Rockville, Westat, 2014.
Bureau of Labor Statistics: Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2014-15 Edition. US Department of Labor, 2014.
Institute of Medicine (US) Roundtable on Translating Genomic-Based Research for Health: Innovations in Service Delivery in the Age of Genomics: Workshop Summary. Washington, National Academies Press, 2009.
Uscher J: Increasing the Ranks of Medical Geneticists, AAMC Reporter. Association of American Medical Colleges, 2013.
DeBoer GE: Scientific literacy: another look at its historical and contemporary meanings and its relationship to science education reform. J Res Sci Teach 2000;37:582-601.
Annas GJ, Elias S: 23andMe and the FDA. N Engl J Med 2014;370:985-988.
Rubin R: FDA okays first direct-to-consumer genetic test. JAMA 2015;313:1306-1306.
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.