Background: Personalized healthcare is expected to yield promising results, with a paradigm shift toward more personalization in the practice of medicine. This emerging field has wide-ranging implications for all the stakeholders. Commercial tests in the form of multiplex genetic profiles are currently being provided to consumers, without the physicians' consultation, through the Internet, referred to as direct-to-consumer genetic tests (DTC GT). Objectives: The objective was to review all the existing European guidelines on DTC GT, and its associated interventions, to list all the supposed benefits and harms, issues and concerns, and recommendations. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of position statements, policies, guidelines, and recommendations, produced by professional organizations or other relevant bodies for use of DTC GT in Europe. Results: Seventeen documents met the inclusion criteria, which were subjected to thematic analysis, and the texts were coded for statements related to use of DTC GT. Discussion and Conclusions: Professional societies and associations are currently more suggestive of potential disadvantages of DTC GT, recommending improved genetic literacy of both populations and health professionals, and implementation research on the genetic tests to integrate public health genomics into healthcare systems.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Austrian Bioethics Commission (2010) Genetic and Genome-Wide Testing on Internet. Available at: www.bka.gv.at/DocView.axd?CobId=40383, accessed April26, 2015.
BocciaS (2012) Personalized health care : the hope beyond the hype. IJPH, 9:9-10.
7.
BocciaS, et al. (2014) Beyond public health genomics: proposals from an international working group. Eur J Public Health, 44:1-2.
8.
BorryP, et al. (2009) Direct-to-consumer genome scanning services. Also for children?. Nat Rev Genet, 10:8.
9.
BorryP, et al. (2010) Health-related direct-to-consumer genetic testing: a review of companies' policies with regard to genetic testing in minors. Fam Cancer, 9:51-59.
10.
BorryP, et al. (2012) Legislation on direct-to-consumer genetic testing in seven European countries. Eur J Hum Genet, 20:715-721.
11.
BrowerV (2010) FDA to regulate direct-to-consumer genetic tests. J Natl Cancer Inst, 102:1610-1613.
12.
CaulfieldT, McGuireAL (2012) Direct-to-consumer genetic testing: perceptions, problems, and policy responses. Annu Rev Med, 63:23-33.
13.
ChapmanE, BiltonD (2004) Patients' knowledge of cystic fibrosis: genetic determinism and implications for treatment. J Genet Couns, 13:369-385.
European Science Foundation (2012) Personalised Medicine for the European Citizen-Towards more precise medicine for the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of disease. Available at: www.esf.org/uploads/media/Personalised_Medicine.pdf, accessed April26, 2015.
19.
European Society of Human Genetics (2014) List of National Human Genetic Societies. Available at: www.eshg.org/76.0.html, accessed April26, 2015.
20.
EvansJP, et al. (2013) We screen newborns, don't we?: realizing the promise of public health genomics. Genet Med, 15:332-334.
HeshkaJT, et al. (2008) A systematic review of perceived risks, psychological and behavioral impacts of genetic testing. Genet Med, 10:19-32.
27.
HogarthS, JavittG, MelzerD (2008) The current landscape for direct-to-consumer genetic testing: legal, ethical, and policy issues. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet, 9:161-182.
28.
HowardHC, BorryP (2008) Direct-to-consumer genetic testing: more questions than benefits?. Per Med, 5:317-320.
International Federation of Human Genetics Societies (2014) IFHGS All members. Available at: www.ifhgs.org/cgi-bin/ifhgsdir.pl, accessed April26, 2015.
32.
JanssensAC, et al. (2008) A critical appraisal of the scientific basis of commercial genomic profiles used to assess health risks and personalize health interventions. Am J Hum Genet. 593-599.
33.
KolorK, et al. (2009) Health care provider and consumer awareness, perceptions, and use of direct-to-consumer personal genomic tests, United States, 2008. Genet Med, 11:595.
34.
LeightonJW, ValverdeK, BernhardtBA (2012) The general public's understanding and perception of direct-to-consumer genetic test results. Public Health Genomics, 15:11-21.
35.
LippiG, FavaloroEJ, PlebaniM (2011) Direct-to-consumer testing: more risks than opportunities. Int J Clin Pract, 65:1221-1229.
36.
McclureJB (2002) Are biomarkers useful treatment aids for promoting health behavior change? An empirical review. Am J Prev Med, 22:200-207.
37.
McguireAL, et al. (2009) Social networkers' attitudes toward direct-to-consumer personal genome testing. Am J Bioeth, 9:3-10.
38.
MelzerD, et al. (2008) Genetic tests for common diseases : new insights, old concerns. BMJ, 336:590-593.
39.
MoherD, et al. (2009) Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Medicine. 6.
40.
National Consultative Ethics Committee for Health and Life Sciences (2008) Opinion no 86 Problems connected to marketing self-test kits for HIV screening and diagnosis of genetic disease. Available at: http://medcontent.metapress.com/index/A65RM03P4874243N.pdf, accessed April26, 2015.
41.
National Council of Ethics for the Life Sciences (2008) Opinion No 56 of the National Council of Ethics for the Life Sciences-Opinion on direct marketing of genetic tests to the public. Available at: www.cnecv.pt/admin/files/data/docs/1312230235_Portugal CNECV P056 EN.pdf, accessed April26, 2015.
Public Health Genomics European Network (2012) European Best Practice Guidelines for Quality Assurance, Provision and Use of Genome-based Information and Technologies—European Best Practice Guidelines for Use of Genome-based information and Technologies Part 3. Available at: www.phgen.eu/typo3/index.php, accessed April26, 2015.
SagiaA, et al. (2011) Critical appraisal of the private genetic and pharmacogenomic testing environment in Greece. Per Med, 8:413-420.
46.
SaukkoP (2013) State of play in direct-to-consumer genetic testing for lifestyle-related diseases: market, marketing content, user experiences and regulation. Proc Nutr Soc, 72:53-60.
47.
ScheunerM, SieverdingP, ShekelleP (2008) Delivery of genomic medicine for common chronic adult diseases—a systematic review. JAMA, 299:1320-1334.
48.
SénécalK, et al. (2009) Direct-toconsumer genetic testing: overview of applicable norms and policies. GenEdit, 7:1-14.
49.
ShawC, AbramsK, MarteauTM (1999) Psychological impact of predicting individuals' risks of illness: a systematic review. Soc Sci Med, 49:1571-1598.
50.
ShehataJ, KooijmanE, IanualeC (2012) Ethical implications and legislative control of direct-to-consumer genetic testing in Europe. IJPH, 9:12-14.
51.
SkirtonH, et al. (2012) Direct to consumer genetic testing: a systematic review of position statements, policies and recommendations. Clin Genet, 82:210-218.
The Nuffield Council on Bioethics Commission (2010) Chapter 9—Personal genetic profiling for disease susceptibility. Available at: www.nuffieldbioethics.org/sites/default/files/files/Personalised healthcare—Chapter 9 Personal genetic profiling(1).pdf, accessed April26, 2015.
Van ElCG, CornelMC (2011) Genetic testing and common disorders in a public health framework—recommendations of the European Society of Human Genetics. Eur J Hum Genet, 19:377-381.
61.
VayenaE (2014) Direct-to-consumer genomics on the scales of autonomy. J Med Ethics, 41:310-314.
62.
VeenstraDL, et al. (2013) Improving the efficiency and relevance of evidence-based recommendations in the era of whole-genome sequencing: an EGAPP methods update. Genet Med, 15:14-24.
63.
WadeCH, WilfondBS (2006) Ethical and clinical practice considerations for genetic counselors related to direct-to-consumer marketing of genetic tests. Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet, 292:284-292.
64.
WrightCF, Gregory-JonesS (2010) Size of the direct-to-consumer genomic testing market. Genet Med, 12:594.
65.
WrightCF, HallA, ZimmernRL (2011) Regulating direct-to-consumer genetic tests: what is all the fuss about?. Genet Med, 13:295-300.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
