Journal of Genetic Counseling

, Volume 22, Issue 5, pp 565–575 | Cite as

Effect of Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Tests on Health Behaviour and Anxiety: A Survey of Consumers and Potential Consumers

Original Research


Direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic tests can be purchased over the internet. Some companies claim to provide relative genetic risks for various diseases and thus encourage healthy behaviour. There are concerns that exposure to such information may actually discourage healthy behaviour or increase health anxiety. An online survey was conducted (n = 275). Respondents were composed of individuals who had purchased a DTC genetic test and received their results (consumers, n = 189), as well as individuals who were either awaiting test results or considering purchasing a test (potential consumers, n = 86). Consumers were asked if their health behaviour or health anxiety had changed after receiving their results. Respondents’ current health behaviour and health anxiety were queried and compared. In total, 27.3 % of consumers claimed a change in health behaviour, all either positive or neutral, with no reported cessation of any existing health behaviour. A change in health anxiety was claimed by 24.6 % of consumers, 85.3 % of which were a reduction. Consumers had significantly better health behaviour scores than potential consumers (p = 0.02), with no significant difference in health anxiety. This study points towards an association between receipt of DTC genetic test results and increased adoption of healthy behaviours for a minority of consumers based on self-report, with more mixed results in relation to health anxiety.


Direct-to-consumer Genetic testing Health Behaviour Anxiety 


  1. 23andMe. Disease risk. Available at Last visited March 12, 2012.
  2. Bloss, C. S., Ornowski, L., Silver, E., et al. (2010). Consumer perceptions of direct-to-consumer personalized genomic risk assessments. Genetics in Medicine, 12(9), 556–566.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bloss, C. S., Darst, D. F., Topol, E. J., & Schork, N. J. (2011). Direct-to-consumer personalized genomic testing. Human Molecular Genetics, 20(R2), R132–R141.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bloss, C. S., Schork, N. J., & Topol, E. J. (2011). Effect of direct-to-consumer genomewide profiling to assess disease risk. The New England Journal of Medicine, 364(6), 524–534.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boyatzis, R.E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 4, 29–53.Google Scholar
  6. deCODEme. Health. Available at Last visited March 12, 2012.
  7. Egglestone, C., Morris, A. & O’Brien, A. (2012). The informatics of direct-to-consumer genetic tests (conference abstract). 13th EAHIL Conference: Health Information Without Frontiers. Available at Last visited November 5, 2012.
  8. Gordon, E.S., Griffin, G., Wawak, L., Pang, H., Gollust, S.E., & Bernhardt, B.A. (2012). “It’s not like judgement day”: public understanding of and reactions to personalized genomic risk information. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 21(3), 423–432.Google Scholar
  9. Hilgart, J. S., Coles, B., & Iredale, R. (2012). Cancer genetic risk assessment for individuals at risk of familial breast cancer. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 15(2), CD003721.Google Scholar
  10. Kaufman, D.J., Bollinger, J.M., Dvoskin, R.L., & Scott, J.A. (2012). Risky business: risk perception and the use of medical services among customers of DTC personal genetic testing. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 21(3), 413–422.Google Scholar
  11. Lachance, C. R., Erby, L. A. H., Ford, B. M., Allen, V. C., Jr., & Kaphingst, K. A. (2010). Informational content, literacy demands, and usability of websites offering health-related genetic tests directly to consumers. Genetics IN Medicine, 12(5), 304–312.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. McBride, C. M., Wade, C. H., & Kaphingst, K. A. (2010). Consumers’ views of direct-to-consumer genetic information. Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics, 22(11), 427–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Murray, A. B., Carson, M. J., Morris, C. A., & Beckwith, J. (2010). Illusions of scientific legitimacy: misrepresented science in the direct-to-consumer genetic-testing marketplace. Trends in Genetics, 26(11), 459–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Navigenics. Genetic counselling. Available at Last visited March 12, 2012.
  15. NHS choices (2011). Physical activity guidelines for adults. Available at Last visited October 30, 2012.
  16. NHS choices (2012). Ten ways to boost your health. Available at Last visited March 12, 2012.
  17. Office for National Statistics. The National Statistics Socio-economic Classification (NS-SEC rebased on the SOC2010). Available at—rebased-on-soc2010—user-manual/index.html Last visited March 12, 2012.
  18. Roberts, J. S., Christensen, K. D., & Green, R. C. (2011). Using Alzheimer's disease as a model for genetic risk disclosure: implications for personal genomics. Clinical Genetics, 80(5), 407–414.Google Scholar
  19. Samuel, G. N., Jordens, C. F. C., & Kerridge, I. (2010). Direct-to-consumer personal genome testing: ethical and regulatory issues that arise from wanting to ‘know’ your DNA. Internal Medicine Journal, 40(3), 220–224.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Singleton, A., Erby, L. H., Foisie, K. V., & Kaphingst, K. A. (2012). Informed choice in direct-to-consumer genetic testing (DTCGT) websites: a content analysis of benefits, risks, and limitations. Journal of Genetic Counselling, 21(3), 433–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Smerecnik, C., Grispen, J. E., & Quaak, M. (2012). Effectiveness of testing for genetic susceptibility to smoking-related diseases on smoking cessation outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Tobacco Control, 21(3), 347–354.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Spencer, D. H., Lockwood, C., Topol, E., et al. (2011). Direct-to-consumer genetic testing: reliable or risky? Clinical Chemistry, 57(12), 1641–1644.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. UCL. Health and behaviour survey. Available at Last visited March 12, 2012.

Copyright information

© National Society of Genetic Counselors, Inc. 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Information ScienceLoughborough UniversityLoughboroughUK

Personalised recommendations