Factors Motivating Individuals to Consider Genetic Testing for Type 2 Diabetes Risk Prediction

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to identify attitudes and perceptions of willingness to participate in genetic testing for type 2 diabetes (T2D) risk prediction in the general population. Adults (n = 598) were surveyed on attitudes about utilizing genetic testing to predict future risk of T2D. Participants were recruited from public libraries (53%), online registry (37%) and a safety net hospital emergency department (10%). Respondents were 37±11 years old, primarily White (54%), female (69%), college educated (46%), with an annual income ≥$25,000 (56%). Half of participants were interested in genetic testing for T2D (52%) and 81% agreed/strongly agreed genetic testing should be available to the public. Only 57% of individuals knew T2D is preventable. A multivariate model to predict interest in genetic testing was adjusted for age, gender, recruitment location and BMI; significant predictors were motivation (high perceived personal risk of T2D [OR = 4.38 (1.76, 10.9)]; family history [OR = 2.56 (1.46, 4.48)]; desire to know risk prior to disease onset [OR = 3.25 (1.94, 5.42)]; and knowing T2D is preventable [OR = 2.11 (1.24, 3.60)], intention (if the cost is free [OR = 10.2 (4.27, 24.6)]; and learning T2D is preventable [OR = 5.18 (1.95, 13.7)]) and trust of genetic testing results [OR = 0.03 (0.003, 0.30)]. Individuals are interested in genetic testing for T2D risk which offers unique information that is personalized. Financial accessibility, validity of the test and availability of diabetes prevention programs were identified as predictors of interest in T2D testing.

Commodification and marketisation of genetic testing through online direct-to-consumer platforms in Hong Kong

“…Rather, most common diseases are influenced by complex interactions among multiple genetic and environmental factors, with each single one of them only leading to minor alterations in risk (Critchley et al, 2015; Janssens et al, 2008). All in all, the complex interactions between genetic and environmental causes in the cases of most common diseases are still poorly understood, and the clinical validity and utility of DTC genetic tests are unclear (American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics, 2016; Janssens et al, 2015; Kolor et al, 2009; Wessel et al, 2016). In the context of DTC promotion, however, genetic determinism may be employed to construct preferred meanings about genetic tests to reflect the marketing agenda of DTC companies.…”

“…The results that current DTC genetic tests are able to provide are thus probabilistic rather than definitive in nature (Bloss et al, 2010). These results can only lead to modest or minimal changes in disease risk management (Goldsmith et al, 2012; Janssens et al, 2008), therefore the clinical validity and utility of these tests are rather limited (Agurs-Collins et al, 2015; Wessel et al, 2016). Unsurprisingly, in marketing their tests, however, the DTC companies foreground the benefits of the tests, rather than their limitations.…”

Recent advances and perspectives in next generation sequencing application to the genetic research of type 2 diabetes

“…According to the latest polls people are interested in genetic testing for T2D risk since this allows them to evaluate the individual feature of pathology state[116]. However, several studies have shown that some factors contribute to the failure of individuals to conduct a genetic test.…”

“…The main factors that influence refusal include distrust of medical researchers, religious prejudices and lower levels of education[117,118]. Some have argued that the clinical significance of genetic markers of T2D have only a minor role in predicting the risk with careful clinical risk assessment, the predictive value increases[116,119].…”

Recruitment Into the Alzheimer Prevention Trials (Apt) Webstudy for a Trial-Ready Cohort for Preclinical and Prodromal Alzheimer’s Disease (Trcpad)

“…The APT Webstudy was launched as clinical trials have increasingly utilized web-based tools, including registries, to improve efficiency in screening ( 7 – 9 ). Although leveraging registries to recruit for clinical trials is not a new concept, the establishment of online registries has broadened access to participants who are interested and eligible for studies ( 10 – 13 ). Going further than remote recruitment, Orri et al ( 14 ) conducted the first entirely web-based clinical trial run under an Investigational New Drug (IND) application.…”