Personal genome testing in medical education: student experiences with genotyping in the classroom

Simone Vernez, Keyan Salari, Kelly E Ormond and Sandra SOO-JIN Lee

For all author emails, please log on.

Genome Medicine 2013, 5:24 doi:10.1186/gm428
Published: 19 March 2013

Abstract (provisional)

Background

Direct-to-Consumer (DTC) personal genotyping services are beginning to be adopted by educational institutions as pedagogical tools for learning about human genetics. However, there is little known about student reactions to such testing. This study investigates student experiences and attitudes towards DTC personal genome testing.

Methods

Individual interviews were conducted with students who chose to undergo personal genotyping in the context of an elective genetics course. Ten medical and graduate students were interviewed before genotyping occurred, and two weeks and six months after receiving their genotype results. Qualitative analysis of interview transcripts assessed the expectations and experiences of students who underwent personal genotyping; how they interpreted and applied their results; how it impacted the quality of their learning during the course; and their perceived needs for support.

Results

Students reported that personal genotyping enhanced their engagement with course content. Although students expressed skepticism over the clinical utility of some test results, they expressed significant enthusiasm immediately after receiving their personal genetic and were particularly interested in results such as drug response and carrier testing. However, few reported making behavioral changes or following up on specific results through a healthcare provider. Students did not report utilizing genetic counseling, despite feeling strongly that the 'general public' would need these services. Students exhibited poor recall on details of the consent and biobanking agreements, but expressed little regret over their decisions to undergo genotyping in followup interviews. Students reported mining their raw genetic data and expressed a need for further consultation support in their exploration of genetic variants.

Conclusions

Personal genotyping may improve students' self-reported motivation and engagement with course material. However, consultative support different from traditional genetic counseling will be necessary to support students. Before incorporating personal genotyping into coursework, institutions should lead multi-disciplinary discussion to anticipate issues and incorporate teaching mechanisms that engage the ethical, legal, and social implications of personal genotyping, including addressing those found in this study, that go beyond what is offered by commercial providers.