↓ Skip to main content

Medicine, market and communication: ethical considerations in regard to persuasive communication in direct-to-consumer genetic testing services

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Ethics, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users

Readers on

mendeley
128 Mendeley
Title
Medicine, market and communication: ethical considerations in regard to persuasive communication in direct-to-consumer genetic testing services
Published in
BMC Medical Ethics, June 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12910-018-0292-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Manuel Schaper, Silke Schicktanz

Abstract

Commercial genetic testing offered over the internet, known as direct-to-consumer genetic testing (DTC GT), currently is under ethical attack. A common critique aims at the limited validation of the tests as well as the risk of psycho-social stress or adaption of incorrect behavior by users triggered by misleading health information. Here, we examine in detail the specific role of advertising communication of DTC GT companies from a medical ethical perspective. Our argumentative analysis departs from the starting point that DTC GT operates at the intersection of two different contexts: medicine on the one hand and the market on the other. Both fields differ strongly with regard to their standards of communication practices and the underlying normative assumptions regarding autonomy and responsibility. Following a short review of the ethical contexts of medical and commercial communication, we provide case examples for persuasive messages of DTC GT websites and briefly analyze their design with a multi-modal approach to illustrate some of their problematic implications. We observe three main aspects in DTC GT advertising communication: (1) the use of material suggesting medical professional legitimacy as a trust-establishing tool, (2) the suggestion of empowerment as a benefit of using DTC GT services and (3) the narrative of responsibility as a persuasive appeal to a moral self-conception. While strengthening and respecting the autonomy of a patient is the focus in medical communication, specifically genetic counselling, persuasive communication is the normal mode in marketing of consumer goods, presuming an autonomous, rational, independent consumer. This creates tension in the context of DTC GT regarding the expectation and normative assessment of communication strategies. Our analysis can even the ground for a better understanding of ethical problems associated with intersections of medical and commercial communication and point to perspectives of analysis of DTC GT advertising.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 128 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 128 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 16%
Student > Bachelor 17 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 13%
Researcher 12 9%
Other 8 6%
Other 22 17%
Unknown 32 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 19 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 18 14%
Social Sciences 14 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 5%
Other 28 22%
Unknown 37 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 11 November 2019.
All research outputs
#5,976,186
of 24,453,338 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#507
of 1,051 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#97,303
of 334,549 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#28
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,453,338 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,051 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 334,549 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 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.