Direct-to-consumer genetic testing (DTC-GT) has sparked much controversy and undergone dramatic changes in its brief history. Debates over appropriate health policies regarding DTC-GT would benefit from empirical research on its benefits, harms, and limitations. We review the recent literature (2011-present) and summarize findings across (1) content analyses of DTC-GT websites, (2) studies of consumer perspectives and experiences, and (3) surveys of relevant health care providers. Findings suggest that neither the health benefits envisioned by DTC-GT proponents (e.g., significant improvements in positive health behaviors) nor the worst fears expressed by its critics (e.g., catastrophic psychological distress and misunderstanding of test results, undue burden on the health care system) have materialized to date. However, research in this area is in its early stages and possesses numerous key limitations. We note needs for future studies to illuminate the impact of DTC-GT and thereby guide practice and policy regarding this rapidly evolving approach to personal genomics.

Aim: To assess customer comprehension of health-related personal genomic testing (PGT) results. Methods: We presented sample reports of genetic results and examined responses to comprehension questions in 1,030 PGT customers (mean age: 46.7 years; 59.9% female; 79.0% college graduates; 14.9% non-White; 4.7% of Hispanic/Latino ethnicity). Sample reports presented a genetic risk for Alzheimer's disease and type 2 diabetes, carrier screening summary results for >30 conditions, results for phenylketonuria and cystic fibrosis, and drug response results for a statin drug. Logistic regression was used to identify correlates of participant comprehension. Results: Participants exhibited high overall comprehension (mean score: 79.1% correct). The highest comprehension (range: 81.1-97.4% correct) was observed in the statin drug response and carrier screening summary results, and lower comprehension (range: 63.6-74.8% correct) on specific carrier screening results. Higher levels of numeracy, genetic knowledge, and education were significantly associated with greater comprehension. Older age (≥60 years) was associated with lower comprehension scores. Conclusions: Most customers accurately interpreted the health implications of PGT results; however, comprehension varied by demographic characteristics, numeracy and genetic knowledge, and types and format of the genetic information presented. Results suggest a need to tailor the presentation of PGT results by test type and customer characteristics.

To deepen understanding of efforts to consider addiction a “brain disease,” we review critical appraisals of the disease model in conjunction with responses from in-depth semistructured stakeholder interviews with (1) patients in treatment for addiction and (2) addiction scientists. Sixty-three patients (from five alcohol and/or nicotine treatment centers in the Midwest) and 20 addiction scientists (representing genetic, molecular, behavioral, and epidemiologic research) were asked to describe their understanding of addiction, including whether they considered addiction to be a disease. To examine the NIDA brain disease paradigm, our approach includes a review of current criticism from the literature, enhanced by the voices of key stakeholders. Many argue that framing addiction as a disease will enhance therapeutic outcomes and allay moral stigma. We conclude that it is not necessary, and may be harmful, to frame addiction as a disease.

How do the addicted view addiction against the framework of formal theories that attempt to explain the condition? In this empirical paper, we report on the lived experience of addiction based on 63 semi-structured, open-ended interviews with individuals in treatment for alcohol and nicotine abuse at five sites in Minnesota. Using qualitative analysis, we identified four themes that provide insights into understanding how people who are addicted view their addiction, with particular emphasis on the biological model. More than half of our sample articulated a biological understanding of addiction as a disease. Themes did not cluster by addictive substance used; however, biological understandings of addiction did cluster by treatment center. Biological understandings have the potential to become dominant narratives of addiction in the current era. Though the desire for a “unified theory” of addiction seems curiously seductive to scholars, it lacks utility. Conceptual “disarray” may actually reflect a more accurate representation of the illness as told by those who live with it. For practitioners in the field of addiction, we suggest the practice of narrative medicine with its ethic of negative capability as a useful approach for interpreting and relating to diverse experiences of disease and illness.