Knowledge and Attitudes about Privacy and Secondary Data Use among African-Americans Using Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing.

IF 1.3 4区 医学 Q4 GENETICS & HEREDITY Public Health Genomics Pub Date : 2022-09-27 DOI:10.1159/000525902
Emily Ziegler, Janessa Mladucky, Bonnie Baty, Rebecca Anderson, Jeffrey Botkin
{"title":"Knowledge and Attitudes about Privacy and Secondary Data Use among African-Americans Using Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing.","authors":"Emily Ziegler, Janessa Mladucky, Bonnie Baty, Rebecca Anderson, Jeffrey Botkin","doi":"10.1159/000525902","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The rapidly expanding direct-to-consumer genetic testing (DTC GT) market is one area where narratives of underrepresented populations have not been explored extensively. This study describes African-American consumers' personal experiences with and perceptions about DTC GT and explores similarities and differences between African-Americans and an earlier cohort of mostly European American consumers.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Twenty semi-structured, qualitative interviews were held with individuals who self-identified as Black/African-American and completed DTC GT between February 2017 and February 2020. Interviews were transcribed and consensus-coded, using inductive content analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Participants generally had positive regard for DTC GT. When considering secondary uses of their results or samples, most participants were aware this was a possibility but had little concrete knowledge about company practices. When prompted about potential uses, participants were generally comfortable with research uses but had mixed outlooks on other nonresearch uses such as law enforcement, cloning, and product development. Most participants expressed that consent should be required for any secondary use, with the option to opt out. The most common suggestion for companies was to improve transparency. Compared to European American participants, African-American participants expressed more trust in DTC GT companies compared to healthcare providers, more concerns about law enforcement uses of data, and a stronger expression of community considerations.</p><p><strong>Discussion/conclusion: </strong>This study found that African-American consumers of DTC GT had a positive outlook about genetic testing and were open to research and some nonresearch uses, provided that they were able to give informed consent. Participants in this study had little knowledge of company practices regarding secondary uses. Compared to an earlier cohort of European American participants, African-American participants expressed more concerns about medical and law enforcement communities' use of data and more reference to community engagement.</p>","PeriodicalId":49650,"journal":{"name":"Public Health Genomics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Public Health Genomics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000525902","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"GENETICS & HEREDITY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: The rapidly expanding direct-to-consumer genetic testing (DTC GT) market is one area where narratives of underrepresented populations have not been explored extensively. This study describes African-American consumers' personal experiences with and perceptions about DTC GT and explores similarities and differences between African-Americans and an earlier cohort of mostly European American consumers.

Methods: Twenty semi-structured, qualitative interviews were held with individuals who self-identified as Black/African-American and completed DTC GT between February 2017 and February 2020. Interviews were transcribed and consensus-coded, using inductive content analysis.

Results: Participants generally had positive regard for DTC GT. When considering secondary uses of their results or samples, most participants were aware this was a possibility but had little concrete knowledge about company practices. When prompted about potential uses, participants were generally comfortable with research uses but had mixed outlooks on other nonresearch uses such as law enforcement, cloning, and product development. Most participants expressed that consent should be required for any secondary use, with the option to opt out. The most common suggestion for companies was to improve transparency. Compared to European American participants, African-American participants expressed more trust in DTC GT companies compared to healthcare providers, more concerns about law enforcement uses of data, and a stronger expression of community considerations.

Discussion/conclusion: This study found that African-American consumers of DTC GT had a positive outlook about genetic testing and were open to research and some nonresearch uses, provided that they were able to give informed consent. Participants in this study had little knowledge of company practices regarding secondary uses. Compared to an earlier cohort of European American participants, African-American participants expressed more concerns about medical and law enforcement communities' use of data and more reference to community engagement.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
使用直接面向消费者的基因检测的非裔美国人对隐私和二次数据使用的了解和态度。
导言:直接面向消费者的基因检测(DTC GT)市场正在迅速扩大,但在这一领域中,对代表性不足的人群的叙述还没有进行广泛的探讨。本研究描述了非裔美国消费者对 DTC GT 的个人经历和看法,并探讨了非裔美国人与早期主要由欧裔美国消费者组成的群体之间的异同:在 2017 年 2 月至 2020 年 2 月期间,对自我认同为黑人/非裔美国人并完成 DTC GT 的个人进行了 20 次半结构化定性访谈。采用归纳内容分析法对访谈内容进行了转录和共识编码:参与者普遍对 DTC GT 持积极态度。在考虑其结果或样本的二次使用时,大多数参与者意识到这是一种可能性,但对公司的具体做法知之甚少。当被问及潜在用途时,参与者一般对研究用途感到满意,但对执法、克隆和产品开发等其他非研究用途的看法不一。大多数参与者表示,任何二次使用都应征得同意,并可选择退出。对公司最常见的建议是提高透明度。与欧美参与者相比,非裔美国人对 DTC GT 公司的信任度高于医疗保健提供者,对执法部门使用数据的担忧更多,对社区考虑的表达也更强烈:本研究发现,DTC 基因检测的非裔美国消费者对基因检测持积极态度,并对研究和一些非研究用途持开放态度,前提是他们能够做出知情同意。本研究的参与者对公司在二次使用方面的做法知之甚少。与较早的一批欧美参与者相比,非裔美国人参与者对医疗和执法部门使用数据表示了更多的担忧,并更多地提到了社区参与。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Public Health Genomics
Public Health Genomics 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
14
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: ''Public Health Genomics'' is the leading international journal focusing on the timely translation of genome-based knowledge and technologies into public health, health policies, and healthcare as a whole. This peer-reviewed journal is a bimonthly forum featuring original papers, reviews, short communications, and policy statements. It is supplemented by topic-specific issues providing a comprehensive, holistic and ''all-inclusive'' picture of the chosen subject. Multidisciplinary in scope, it combines theoretical and empirical work from a range of disciplines, notably public health, molecular and medical sciences, the humanities and social sciences. In so doing, it also takes into account rapid scientific advances from fields such as systems biology, microbiomics, epigenomics or information and communication technologies as well as the hight potential of ''big data'' for public health.
期刊最新文献
"The Biggest Struggle:" Navigating Trust and Uncertainty in Genetic Variant Interpretation. "Should I let them know I have this?": Multifaceted genetic discrimination and limited awareness of legal protections amongst individuals with hereditary cancer syndromes. Who's on your genomics research team? Consumer experiences from Australia. Development and Pilot Testing of Evidence-Based Interventions to Improve Adherence after Receiving a Genetic Result. Co-creating the experience of consent for newborn genome sequencing (The Generation Study).
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1