Informational content, literacy demands, and usability of websites offering health-related genetic tests directly to consumers.
OBJECTIVE
As direct-to-consumer genetic testing becomes more available, a diverse group of consumers, including those with limited health literacy, may consider testing. In light of concerns raised about direct-to-consumer genetic testing, this study sought to critically examine whether the informational content, literacy demands, and usability of health-related direct-to-consumer websites met existing recommendations.


METHODS
A content analysis was performed on 29 health-related direct-to-consumer websites. Two coders independently evaluated each website for informational content (e.g., benefits, limitations), literacy demands (e.g., reading level), and usability (e.g., ease of navigation).


RESULTS
Most sites presented health conditions and some markers for which they tested, benefits of testing, a description of the testing process, and their privacy policy. Fewer cited scientific literature, explained test limitations, or provided an opportunity to consult a health professional. Key informational content was difficult to locate on most sites. Few sites gave sample disease risk estimates or used common language and explained technical terms consistently. Average reading level was grade 15.


CONCLUSIONS
The quality of informational content, literacy demands, and usability across health-related direct-to-consumer websites varied widely. Many users would struggle to find and understand the important information. For consumers to better understand the content on these sites and evaluate the meaning of the tests for their health, sites should lower the demands placed on users by distilling and prioritizing the key informational content while simultaneously attending to the reading level and usability elements. In the absence of regulation compelling such changes, government agencies or professional organizations may need to increase consumer and provider awareness of these issues.
Lachance
Christina R
CR
Social and Behavioral Research Branch, National Human Genome Research Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Erby
Lori A H
LA
Ford
Beth M
BM
Allen
Vincent C
VC
Kaphingst
Kimberly A
KA
D003695:Delivery of Health Care / Q000592:standards; D004522:Educational Status; D057220:Health Literacy; D006801:Humans; D007182:Income; D018907:Privacy / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence
Genet Med. 2008 Nov;10(11):784-96
18941418
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2009 Apr;18(4):1303-11
19318436
Am J Hum Genet. 2008 Mar;82(3):593-9
18319070
Nature. 2009 Oct 8;461(7265):724-6
19812653
Genet Med. 2009 Aug;11(8):595
19680046
Nature. 2008 Nov 6;456(7218):34-5
18987720
Cancer Causes Control. 2006 Mar;17(2):147-51
16425092
J Clin Pharmacol. 2009 Aug;49(8):886-8
19602717
Public Health Genomics. 2010;13(2):95-105
19556748
Ethics Med. 2006 Summer;22(2):83-91
17115513
Med Decis Making. 2001 Jan-Feb;21(1):37-44
11206945
Genet Med. 2003 Jul-Aug;5(4):332-7
12865763
Nicotine Tob Res. 2004 Apr;6(2):207-19
15203794
J Health Commun. 2004 Nov-Dec;9(6):515-28
15764450
J Med Internet Res. 2004 Sep 03;6(3):e25
15471751
Genet Med. 2009 Aug;11(8):588-94
19636253
Eur J Cancer Prev. 2005 Feb;14(1):69-75
15677898
Mayo Clin Proc. 2005 Jan;80(1):63-73
15667031
Genet Test. 2008 Mar;12(1):13-23
18373401
JAMA. 2002 Oct 9;288(14):1762-7
12365961
Genet Med. 2008 Nov;10(11):778-83
18941419
Genet Med. 2004 Jan-Feb;6(1):60
14726812
Public Health Genomics. 2011;14(4-5):279-89
20407217
Public Health Genomics. 2009;12(2):92-104
19039253
Clin Ther. 1998;20 Suppl C:C86-95
9915094
Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet. 2008;9:161-82
18767961
J Genet Couns. 2004 Aug;13(4):305-20
19736696
Nature. 2003 Apr 24;422(6934):835-47
12695777
Obstet Gynecol. 2007 Dec;110(6):1392-5
18055737
Genet Med. 2009 Aug;11(8):568-9
19606051
N Engl J Med. 2003 Sep 4;349(10):996-8
12954750
JAMA. 2007 Jul 11;298(2):218-21
17622604
N Engl J Med. 2008 Jan 10;358(2):105-7
18184955