Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2017 Jun;25(6):662-668.
doi: 10.1038/ejhg.2017.10. Epub 2017 Mar 15.

Personal utility in genomic testing: a systematic literature review

Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Personal utility in genomic testing: a systematic literature review

Jennefer N Kohler et al. Eur J Hum Genet. 2017 Jun.

Abstract

Researchers and clinicians refer to outcomes of genomic testing that extend beyond clinical utility as 'personal utility'. No systematic delineation of personal utility exists, making it challenging to appreciate its scope. Identifying empirical elements of personal utility reported in the literature offers an inventory that can be subsequently ranked for its relative value by those who have undergone genomic testing. A systematic review was conducted of the peer-reviewed literature reporting non-health-related outcomes of genomic testing from 1 January 2003 to 5 August 2016. Inclusion criteria specified English language, date of publication, and presence of empirical evidence. Identified outcomes were iteratively coded into unique domains. The search returned 551 abstracts from which 31 studies met the inclusion criteria. Study populations and type of genomic testing varied. Coding resulted in 15 distinct elements of personal utility, organized into three domains related to personal outcomes: affective, cognitive, and behavioral; and one domain related to social outcomes. The domains of personal utility may inform pre-test counseling by helping patients anticipate potential value of test results beyond clinical utility. Identified elements may also inform investigations into the prevalence and importance of personal utility to future test users.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Systematic literature search flow.

References

    1. Grosse SD, Khoury MJ: What is the clinical utility of genetic testing? Genet Med 2006; 8: 448–450. - PubMed
    1. Low CA, Bower JE, Kwan L, Seldon J: Benefit finding in response to BRCA1/2 testing. Ann Behav Med 2008; 35: 61–69. - PubMed
    1. Neumann PJ, Hammitt JK, Mueller C et al: Public attitudes about genetic testing for Alzheimer's disease. Health Aff 2001; 20: 252–264. - PubMed
    1. Ravitsky V, Wilfond BS: Disclosing individual genetic results to research participants. Am J Bioeth 2006; 6: 8–17. - PubMed
    1. Wasson K, Sanders TN, Hogan NS, Cherny S, Helzlsouer KJ: Primary care patients' views and decisions about, experience of and reactions to direct-to-consumer genetic testing: a longitudinal study. J Community Genet 2013; 4: 495–505. - PMC - PubMed