| Title |
Current ethical and legal issues in health-related direct-to-consumer genetic testing
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Personalized Medicine, September 2017
|
| DOI | 10.2217/pme-2017-0029 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Emilia Niemiec, Louiza Kalokairinou, Heidi Carmen Howard |
| Abstract |
A variety of health-related genetic testing is currently advertized directly to consumers. This article provides a timely overview of direct-to-consumer genetic testing (DTC GT) and salient ethical issues, as well as an analysis of the impact of the recently adopted regulation on in vitro diagnostic medical devices on DTC GT. DTC GT companies currently employ new testing approaches, report on a wide spectrum of conditions and target new groups of consumers. Such activities raise ethical issues including the questionable analytic and clinical validity of tests, the adequacy of informed consent, potentially misleading advertizing, testing in children, research uses and commercialization of genomic data. The recently adopted regulation on in vitro diagnostic medical devices may limit the offers of predisposition DTC GT in the EU market. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Comoros | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 101 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 101 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 18 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 14 | 14% |
| Researcher | 10 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 7% |
| Other | 10 | 10% |
| Unknown | 32 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 19 | 19% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 16% |
| Social Sciences | 9 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 14 | 14% |
| Unknown | 33 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 January 2021.
All research outputs
#7,967,652
of 25,393,528 outputs
Outputs from Personalized Medicine
#170
of 557 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#115,947
of 323,417 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Personalized Medicine
#7
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,393,528 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 557 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 323,417 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.