Survey study reveals rising referral burdens from direct-to-consumer genetic testing across Australian clinical genetics services, highlighting low test validation and unstandardized management.
Purpose The increasing popularity of direct-to-consumer genetic testing (DTCGT) is thought to be creating a burden on clinical genetic health services worldwide. However, no studies have collected recent evidence regarding the extent of this impact in Australia. Methods We administered an online survey to Australian clinical genetics services, asking questions related to DTCGT-related referrals received and outcomes over the past 10 years. Results Eleven publicly-funded clinical genetics services completed the survey, reporting over 100 DTCGT-related referrals. Most referrals (83%) were made by general practitioners seeking interpretation of DTCGT results. More than 30% of referrals related to imputed genetic risk estimates generated from third-party web-based software tools. Services reported low validation rates for DTCGT results (<10%). Procedures for managing DTCGT referrals and granting appointments were variable between services, with most services (8/11) lacking specific procedures. Conclusion Our study helps quantify the impact of DTCGT on clinical genetics services, and highlights the impact of imputed genetic risk estimates generated from third-party software.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Millward et al. (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: