Search

Simple Summary: Numerous studies have evaluated the human personal genomics industry, though research has largely overlooked consumer use of these tests for companion animals. This is surprising considering the domestic dog and cat genomes were sequenced shortly after the completion of the human genome and the first genetic test became available for dogs in 2007. As a novel area of research, this study draws on a previous analysis of companion animal genetic company website and consumer review data. The theoretical framework builds on human–animal studies and research into human self-use of personal genomic services. Our objectives were to evaluate consumer (1) motivations for having their dog genetically tested, (2) perceptions of the returned results and services, and (3) responses to their dog's results. Results showed that dog guardians are motivated to use these services to learn their dog's breed composition, perceive the results as accurate, and respond by sharing their dog's results with family and friends. Using these results and the presented framework, future research is positioned to evaluate how consumers may selectively incorporate genetic test results into their relationship with their dog. Direct-to-consumer genetic services allow companion animal guardians to purchase a DNA test and receive detailed results about their pet's ancestry, health, and traits results. In collaboration with Wisdom Panel, we present novel findings about consumer motivations, perceptions, and responses to their use of canine genomic services. Wisdom Panel customers were invited to complete an online survey anonymously in which they were asked about their reasons for using a genetic test for their dog, how they perceived the test's results, and how they responded to the results they received. Participant data revealed most utilized a test that provided more ancestry/breed results (75.9%) as compared to health-related results. The majority of participants perceived the breed test results as accurate (52.0% strongly agree, 27.6% somewhat agree) and the genetic services provided as having great value (49.6% strongly agree, 32.7% somewhat agreed). In responding to their dog's results, participants indicated they shared the information with family (88.1%) and friends (84.2%). Collectively, our study indicates consumers are more focused on their dog's ancestry than other test results. Using these findings and previous literature on human direct-to-consumer genetic testing, human–animal dyads, and identity construction, we consider the possibility of "breed options theory" and future areas of research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Mars Petcare introduced the first direct-to-consumer domestic dog genetic test in 2009 and Basepaws introduced the first direct-to-consumer cat genetic test in 2016. Social science research has evaluated numerous aspects of the human direct-to-consumer market, yet no such exploration has evaluated the occurrence of pet owners pursuing pet genetic tests. Using a mixed methods approach, we conducted an exploratory content analysis of direct-to-consumer pet genetic company webpages and consumer reviews shared on Amazon. Initial data reviews indicated some companies may be key industry players, relative to others. Our results present content frequency for each group (key industry players, all other companies), though the primary themes for each remained the same. Analysis showed genetic companies are primarily sharing product and purchasing information, along with trustworthiness to establish the merit of the company and their products. Companies also used statements directed towards pet owners that are suggestive of both pets and "pet parents" benefiting from the test results. The primary themes identified in consumer reviews involved consumers sharing their perception about the tests (e.g., accuracy), what aspects of the test results they focused on (e.g., breed information), and experiences with using the test (e.g., ease of use). Amazon reviews were primarily positive, though the companies with smaller review numbers had higher percentages of negative and ambiguous sentiments. Of interest, reviews most often indicated tests were being used to determine a pet's breed identity, while companies most frequently promoted the health advantages of using their products. Reviews revealed some consumers respond to tests by sharing their pet's results with someone or by altering their pet's care. Considering these results in addition to the growing popularity of this industry and the advancements of genomic technology, further research is needed to determine the role pet genetic testing may have in society and on human-animal relationships. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]