Commercial genetic testing for companion animals became available shortly after the initial sequencing of the domestic dog and cat genomes in the early 2000s. The popularity of over-the-counter tests among dog and cat owners has continued to grow, with the global pet DNA testing market predicted to increase from 322.02 million US dollars in 2022 to 640.24 million US dollars by 2030.1 Factors driving test popularity include advancements in genetic technology making tests more affordable2 and higher pet adoption rates, in which the history of the adopted animal is limited.1,3 Commonly referred to as “direct-to-consumer (D2C) genetic testing,” these tests are easily accessible to consumers with internet access to purchase directly from the company as test kits are not available in brick-and-mortar retail stores. Though, as tests have gained popularity, third-party e-commerce platforms (eg, Amazon.com, Chewy.com) are another means for pet owners to access commercial genetic services.4
Genetic test results, depending on the product purchased, may provide owners with information on their pet's breed composition and health. Breed identification may assist pet owners in confirming or learning their pet's breed (also referred to as “ancestry” by D2C genetic companies).5 Health-related tests screen for genetic variants associated with breed-specific health risks (eg, MDR1 drug sensitivity in herding dog breeds).6 Companies offering health results often promote these services more than other services.4 This trend has implications for veterinary medicine as pet owners may or may not consult a veterinary professional about these results. Concerns have been raised about the implications for pet animal welfare, such as owners making significant care decisions without veterinary guidance.7 However, research on the use of D2C genetic services by pet owners has not detected these negative outcomes, with consumers expressing more interest in their pet's breed information even when detailed health information is provided.3,4 Nonetheless, companies with a strong presence in the D2C market are actively entering veterinary care markets, aiming to boost sales and promote personalized veterinary medicine.5
D2C genetic companies claim genetic health information can offer substantial benefits when incorporated into veterinary care.4,6 For example, mutations in the Striatin gene are associated with arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy in Boxers,8 whereas a mutation in the MYBPC3 gene is associated with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy in Ragdolls and Maine Coon cats.9 In both cases, genetic testing can identify these variants, enabling veterinarians to guide pet owners in making informed veterinary care decisions. With access to genetic health data, pet owners, alongside their veterinarian, can take proactive measures, such as early interventions and tailored care plans, to achieve more personalized, comprehensive care.
While D2C companies aim to integrate veterinary professionals into their model of genetic company-pet owner interactions, research has yet to evaluate current veterinary perspectives on this industry. Understanding veterinary care provider (VCP) experiences with the industry is particularly relevant as studies indicate veterinarians are regularly encountering genetic services10 and predict these encounters are going to increase.11 Furthermore, a review of genetic testing and veterinary medicine highlights that the most urgent concern for veterinary professionals is helping owners interpret results provided by D2C companies.11 To bridge this gap, a cross-sectional sampling method was used to recruit VCPs attending a professional conference to complete a survey focused on VCP perspectives of D2C genetic testing. Our objectives were to assess VCP awareness of the D2C genetic industry, experiences with clients using these services, perceptions of the clinical utility of genetic services, and confidence in their abilities to interpret genetic test results.
Methods
Participant recruitment
This study was completed in collaboration with Viticus Group, a leading provider of veterinary and human health education services that hosts the annual Western Veterinary Conference (WVC).12 The WVC Annual Conference is one of the largest and longest-running veterinary conferences, attracting a diverse representation of VCP from across the US. Using a cross-sectional sampling method, veterinary professionals attending the WVC from February 19 through 23, 2023, were invited to complete an online survey. The survey link was distributed via the conference smartphone application, and printed flyers were included in conference grab bags. Participation was encouraged by offering a University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)-themed pen to participants who visited the UNLV information booth at the conference. Participants completed the survey anonymously and were required to be at least 18 years of age. Participants provided informed consent before being able to access the survey. This study was categorized as exempt by the UNLV institutional review board (protocol UNLV-2022-514).
Survey design
Survey questions were adapted from Powell et al's13 questionnaire that evaluated human healthcare provider perspectives about the D2C genetic market. The survey was administered using an online survey platform (Qualtrics) and designed to take less than 5 minutes to complete. Survey questions were developed to evaluate VCP perspectives regarding their awareness of the D2C genetic industry, experiences with clients having questions about D2C genetic services, attitudes toward the clinical utility of genetic testing, and confidence levels in assisting clients with understanding D2C genetic test results.
The survey opened with a description of D2C genetic services, followed by the question “Have any clients ever asked about or brought in results from a D2C genetic test?,” with respondents answering either “yes” or “no.” Skip logic was used to tailor subsequent questions based on respondents’ experiences with clients. Participants who responded “yes” were asked about the type of client questions encountered regarding D2C genetic services and estimates on the number of clients who had used these services. Those who answered “no” proceeded to the next section.
To evaluate participant attitudes about the clinical utility of genetic testing, participants were asked, “In general, do you believe genetic test services (both D2C or in-house services) are clinically useful for creating a medical care plan?,” with “yes” and “no” as response options. Skip logic was again used to further probe participants on their response (eg, those who said “yes” were asked, “Why do you feel genetic testing is clinically useful?”). Participants were provided a list of options and could select multiple items or use a text box if they selected “other.”
The next section asked participants about their confidence levels in assisting clients with interpreting certain test results (ie, dog vs cat and health vs breed). These statements were presented as Likert items on a 5-point scale (1 = not at all confident, 2 = somewhat unconfident, 3 = no opinion, 4 = somewhat confident, and 5 = extremely confident). The survey concluded with an open-ended textbox for participants to provide additional information they felt was important to share, followed by demographic and job-related questions. The complete survey is available as Supplementary Material S1.
Statistical analysis
Data were exported from Qualtrics into Excel (Microsoft Corp) for processing, then analyzed using statistical software (SPSS Statistics, version 29; IBM Corp). Frequencies and percentages were calculated for the following measures: participant demographics and professional role, VCP awareness and experiences with the D2C genetic industry, and preparedness to interpret genetic test results. Demographic and job role questions were optional. Therefore, responses from participants who selected “prefer not to say” were excluded from analyses where specific VCP roles were evaluated. All responses for “experience” measures were used for VCP participants to provide a general understanding about client inquiries. For clinical utility, only registered veterinary technicians (RVTs) and Doctors of Veterinary Medicine (DVM) responses were utilized as their licensed status and roles make their opinions more influential regarding treatment plans. Confidence levels in interpreting genetic test results were analyzed specifically for DVMs because (1) they are the primary target of the genetic test industry for client support and (2) their academic training typically includes coursework in genetics. Doctors of Veterinary Medicine confidence levels in assisting clients with different genetic test results (dog vs cat; health vs breed) were compared using the Friedman test. The test statistic showed a significant difference among these variables (χ2 = 28.494; degree of freedom, 3; P < .001), indicating that at least 1 pair of confidence levels differed. Following the Friedman test, a post hoc analysis using Wilcoxon signed ranks was performed to determine specific pairwise differences. The threshold of significance was lowered to 0.025 with Bonferroni corrections.
Results
Two hundred twenty-nine participants began the survey, with 218 completing all survey sections (95.2% completion rate). Partial responses were included up to the last section that participants completed. If a participant left a question blank in a completed a section and progressed to the following section, the blank response was coded as “prefer not to say” or “no opinion.” Figure 1 shows survey flow and the number of participants who completed the section.
Survey structure and participant responses from veterinary care providers participating in a study conducted at a professional veterinary conference in 2023. The study objectives were to assess veterinary care providers’ experiences, perceptions, and confidence related to direct-to-consumer genetic testing. Participants included Doctors of Veterinary Medicine and registered veterinary technicians as described in Table 1. The online survey opened with informed consent (n = 239), and 229 participants began the survey. Participants who selected “yes” to encountering clients that used direct-to-consumer genetic testing (n = 186) answered additional questions about these experiences before continuing to the remainder of the survey. Participants who selected “no” (n = 43) skipped these experience-related questions and proceeded directly to subsequent survey sections. The remainder of the survey asked about the clinical utility of genetic testing (n = 225), confidence levels of helping clients with genetic test results (n = 218), and demographic/job role information (n = 218).
Citation: American Journal of Veterinary Research 2025; 10.2460/ajvr.24.09.0265
Sample characterization
The majority of participants were veterinarians (131 of 218 [60.3%]) working in small animal practice (160 of 218 [73.7%]) and primarily worked with dogs (206 of 218 [94.9%]) and cats (199 of 218 [91.7%]; Table 1). Among the veterinarians, 125 of 131 (95%) reported working with both dogs and cats, with additional responses indicating experience with other species (eg, small mammals). See Supplementary Table S1 for demographic information.
Distribution of professional roles, clinical settings, and species treated among veterinary care providers who participated in a study conducted at a professional veterinary conference in 2023.
| Professional role | n | Percentage | Clinical setting | n | Percentage | Species worked with (select all that apply) | n | Percentage |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DVM | 131 | 60.1 | Small animal | 159 | 72.9 | Dogs | 206 | 94.5 |
| RVT | 44 | 20.2 | Mixed practice | 16 | 7.3 | Cats | 199 | 91.3 |
| Veterinary assistant | 9 | 4.1 | Shelter/NGO | 11 | 5.0 | Small mammals | 51 | 23.4 |
| Student, RVT | 8 | 3.7 | Academic/research | 7 | 3.2 | Birds | 25 | 11.5 |
| Student, DVM | 6 | 2.8 | Other | 5 | 2.3 | Large animals, livestock | 22 | 10.1 |
| Practice manager | 7 | 3.2 | Emergency/specialty | 4 | 1.8 | Reptiles, amphibians | 21 | 9.6 |
| Other | 4 | 1.8 | Large animal | 3 | 1.4 | Wildlife, zoo animals | 10 | 4.6 |
| Prefer not to say | 9 | 4.1 | Prefer not to say | 13 | 6.0 | Prefer not to say | 6 | 2.8 |
DVM = Doctor of Veterinary Medicine. NGO = Nongovernmental Organization. RVT = Registered Veterinary Technician.
The study objectives were to assess veterinary care providers’ experiences, perceptions, and confidence regarding direct-to-consumer genetic testing. The table shows the frequency and percentage of respondents across various roles, settings, and species treated. Multiple species selections were allowed as indicated in the “Species worked with (select all that apply)” column.
Veterinary care provider awareness and experiences with the D2C genetic industry
Of the surveyed VCPs, 186 of 229 (81.2%) reported encountering clients who had used or intended to use a D2C genetic test for a pet. Among these VCPs, 132 of 186 (71.0%) estimated that 1% to 15% of their client base had inquired about D2C genetic testing. These inquiries mainly involved clients seeking recommendations for a testing company (123 of 186 [66.1%]) or whether the VCP believed a D2C genetic test would be worthwhile for their pet (136 of 186 [73.1%]). Refer to Supplementary Table S2 for all types of client inquiries.
Doctor of Veterinary Medicine and RVT perceptions toward genetic testing clinical utility
When asked if genetic services (both D2C and/or in house) are clinically useful, 86 of 131 DVMs (65.6%) and 36 of 44 RVTs (81.8%) replied “yes.” In contrast, 45 of 131 DVMs (34.4%) and 8 of 44 RVTs (18.2%) responded “no.” When asked why they held these opinions, those who answered that genetic testing is clinically useful rated the following as the top 2 reasons: “Genetic test results can indicate if more in-depth diagnostics are necessary” (99 of 122 [81.1%]) and “Genetic test results are relevant to patient care” (85 of 122 [69.7%]). Doctors of Veterinary Medicine and RVTs who selected “no” rated the following as the top 2 reasons: “It is difficult to interpret what the results could mean for patient care” (36 of 53 [67.9%]) and “There are no ways to determine the accuracy of test results” (31 of 53 [58.5%]). Refer to Supplementary Table S3 for a complete list of justifications for attitudes toward the clinical utility of genetic testing for all VCPs.
Doctor of Veterinary Medicine confidence with assisting clients
Doctors of Veterinary Medicine expressed varying confidence levels in their ability to assist clients with understanding their pet's test results (Figure 2). Doctors of Veterinary Medicine reported higher confidence in assisting clients with dog breed results compared to both cat breed results (Z = −4.043; P < .001) and cat health results (Z = −2.528; P = .011). Doctors of Veterinary Medicine also rated higher confidence levels for helping clients with dog health results than cat health results (Z = −2.254; P = .024) and cat breed results (Z = −2.244; P = .025). No significant differences in confidence levels were found between interpreting cat breed and cat health results (Z = −0.906; P = .365) and dog breed and dog health results (Z = −1.174; P = .24).
Confidence levels of Doctors of Veterinary Medicine in assisting clients with understanding their pet's genetic test results as described in Table 1 and Figure 1. The percentage marks indicate the proportion of participants who selected each category: "not at all confident," "somewhat unconfident," "no opinion," "somewhat confident," and "extremely confident."
Citation: American Journal of Veterinary Research 2025; 10.2460/ajvr.24.09.0265
Discussion
Veterinary care providers are encountering pet owners who use D2C genetic services, with these interactions primarily involving clients needing assistance in either choosing a commercial test or understanding test results. Rando et al6 cautioned that veterinarians are likely to be placed in a role to educate pet owners about genetic testing even when the veterinarian either did not order or recommend the particular test the owner purchased. Moreover, companies offering health-related results are increasingly incorporating these services into their most affordable “breed-only” panels. As a result, even when pet owners are primarily interested in their pet's breed information, they are likely to encounter health information as part of their results. This study, coupled with industry behaviors, highlights the importance of integrating knowledge about D2C genetic testing into veterinary practice to better support clients.
In addition to expanding genetic services in the D2C space, genetic companies are establishing their presence within clinical settings. For instance, some veterinary hospital chains (Banfield Pet Hospitals) have integrated genetic test services (Wisdom Panel) into their wellness care plans.7 Other genetic test providers (Embark) have partnered with veterinary practices to demonstrate that “clinic-driven genetic screening can positively impact the standard of care.”14 The Embark case study reported that genetic testing was utilized to identify potential health risks by prompting follow-up diagnostics and develop personalized treatment plans. The positive perceptions toward the clinical applications of genetic testing expressed by the majority of respondents in our study also suggests that genetic test services have the potential to enhance veterinary care.
Our findings also highlight several challenges that the commercial genetic industry must address. Although a smaller percentage of participants in our study did not see genetic testing as clinically useful, their concerns are not limited to this study. Moses et al15 first cautioned about using commercial genetic testing for medical purposes due to the industry's lack of transparency and regulatory oversight. For instance, regulatory gaps allow companies to report on genetic variants that may or may not have peer-reviewed literature to support their association with specific disease,11 potentially undermining the credibility and utility of these tests in veterinary medicine. In an effort to resolve these concerns, Shaffer et al16,17 have created standards and guidelines, though their adoption by commercial genetic laboratories remains uncertain. As genetic testing becomes more common in veterinary practices, implementing these standards will be essential for building trust within the veterinary community and to fully unlock the animal health benefits that genetic testing offers.
Another limitation of D2C genetic test services in veterinary medicine revealed in this study is the variability in DVMs’ confidence in helping clients interpret genetic test results. Notable differences were observed based on species (dog vs cat) and the type of information provided (breed vs health), with DVMs expressing greater comfort in interpreting dog-related test results compared to those for cats. These differences could stem from dog genetic testing being more established, with the first D2C genetic test for dogs introduced in 2009 compared to 2016 for cats.4 As for variability in veterinarians’ abilities to interpret genetic information, Bogaerts et al10 also identified differences in result interpretation skills among veterinarians. Although our study did not directly assess whether VCPs’ confidence levels reflect their actual knowledge in clinical genetics, the findings emphasize the importance of improved support from commercial genetic laboratories to veterinarians needing to help clients. To address these challenges, targeted training programs are recommended to close gaps in knowledge and confidence among veterinary professionals.
This study provides valuable insights into VCPs’ awareness, perceptions, and confidence regarding D2C genetic testing. However, the reliance on self-reported data may not fully capture practical challenges or current practices associated with genetic testing in veterinary medicine. The cross-sectional design and sample size limit our ability to assess changes in VCP attitudes over time or establish causal relationships between perception and conference attendance. Future research could use longitudinal designs with larger samples to better understand how VCP insights and competencies change when genetic testing becomes integrated into their veterinary practices. More specifically, follow-up projects should focus on practicing DVMs as they are targeted by genetic companies to fill the role of genetic counselor. Given that our objectives were to characterize current VCP perspectives, we did not investigate potential differences in confidence levels based on job category (eg, small animal practice vs shelter medicine) or the species under their medical care (eg, dog and cat vs cat-only specialty clinics). Exploring these factors will become especially salient as the regulatory landscape for genetic testing continues to evolve.
Understanding VCPs’ perspectives will be crucial in shaping effective policies and developing educational resources for those using genetic services. Our findings give voice to VCPs’ views on the clinical utility of D2C genetic services and their confidence in advising clients based on test results. These observations may guide the development of targeted training programs, such as continuing education on interpreting genetic test results and integrating them into patient care. Furthermore, this study highlights the need for standardized guidelines to bridge the gap between pet owners’ increasing use of commercial genetic services and veterinarians’ role in ensuring genetic information is meaningfully applied in their pet's care. Commercial genetic companies could also use this opportunity to refine their strategies to ensure that their services align with veterinary best practices to enhance the application of genetic testing in veterinary care. This could mean a shift toward clearer communication about test utility and quality assurance. By aligning the efforts of genetic companies with that of veterinarians and pet owners, we can ensure that commercial genetic testing becomes an integral tool in advancing veterinary care.
Supplementary Materials
Supplementary materials are posted online at the journal website: avmajournals.avma.org.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank all of the staff at Viticus Group who contributed to the success of this project. In particular, they would like to acknowledge Stephanie Gerling, Anthony Pease, and Jamie Perkins for their invaluable support. They also extend their gratitude to Melissa Upjohn for her consultation during the study design phase and to Shelly Volsche for her thoughtful feedback on numerous versions of this manuscript.
Disclosures
The authors have nothing to disclose. No AI-assisted technologies were used in the generation of this manuscript.
Funding
This research was funded by the Edwards & Olswang Grant, awarded in support of graduate scholarship and research activity in anthropology.
ORCID
N. E. Bennett https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1134-8048
References
- 1.↑
Pet DNA testing market size, share & trends analysis report by test type (genetic diseases, health & wellness), by animal type (dogs, cats), by sample type (blood, saliva), by end-user, and segment forecasts, 2023 – 2030. Research and Markets. Published February 2023. Accessed August 21, 2024. https://www.researchandmarkets.com/reports/5748266/pet-dna-testing-market-size-share-and-trends
- 2.↑
Allyse MA, Robinson DH, Ferber MJ, Sharp RR. Direct-to-consumer testing 2.0: emerging models of direct-to-consumer genetic testing. Mayo Clin Proc. 2018;93(1):113–120. doi:10.1016/j.mayocp.2017.11.001
- 3.↑
Bennett NE, Gray PB. A study evaluating consumer motivations, perceptions, and responses to direct-to-consumer canine genetic test results. Animals. 2022;12(23):3360. doi:10.3390/ani12233360
- 4.↑
Bennett NE, Mirabal Torres SE, Gray PB. Exploratory content analysis of direct-to-consumer pet genomics: what is being marketed and what are consumers saying? PLoS One. 2022;17(1):e0261694. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0261694
- 5.↑
Rando HM, Graim K, Hampikian G, Greene CS. Many direct-to-consumer canine genetic tests can identify the breed of purebred dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2024;262(5):1–8. doi:10.2460/javma.23.07.0372
- 6.↑
Donner J, Freyer J, Davison S, et al. Genetic prevalence and clinical relevance of canine mendelian disease variants in over one million dogs. PLoS Genet. 2023;19(2):e1010651. doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1010651
- 7.↑
Moses L, Malowney MJ, Wesley Boyd J. Ethical conflict and moral distress in veterinary practice: a survey of North American veterinarians. J Vet Intern Med. 2018;32(6):2115–2122. doi:10.1111/jvim.15315
- 8.↑
Meurs KM, Mauceli E, Lahmers S, Acland GM, White SN, Lindblad-Toh K. Genome-wide association identifies a deletion in the 3’ untranslated region of striatin in a canine model of arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy. Hum Genet. 2010;128(3):315–324. doi:10.1007/s00439-010-0855-y
- 9.↑
Kittleson MD, Meurs KM, Harris SP. The genetic basis of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy in cats and humans. J Vet Cardiol. 2015;17(suppl 1):S53–S73. doi:10.1016/j.jvc.2015.03.001
- 10.↑
Bogaerts E, den Boer E, Peelman L, et al. Veterinarians’ competence in applying basic genetic principles and daily implementation of clinical genetics: a study in a university environment. J Vet Med Educ. 2022;49(6):799–806 doi:10.3138/jvme-2020-0029
- 11.↑
Baker L, Muir P, Sample SJ. Genome-wide association studies and genetic testing: understanding the science, success, and future of a rapidly developing field. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2019;255(10):1126–1136. doi:10.2460/javma.255.10.1126
- 12.↑
WVC annual conference. VictusGroup. Accessed November 1, 2024. https://www.viticusgroup.org/wvc-conference
- 13.↑
Powell KP, Cogswell WA, Christianson CA, et al. Primary care physicians’ awareness, experience and opinions of direct-to-consumer genetic testing. J Genet Couns. 2012;21(1):113–126. doi:10.1007/s10897-011-9390-9
- 14.↑
Telford Vet Hospital pilot study. Embark Vet. Accessed August 23, 2024. https://embarkvet.com/vets/case-studies/
- 15.↑
Moses L, Niemi S, Karlsson E. Pet genomics medicine runs wild. Nature. 2018;559(7715):470–472. doi:10.1038/d41586-018-05771-0
- 16.↑
Shaffer LG, Sundin K, Geretschlaeger A, et al. Standards and guidelines for canine clinical genetic testing laboratories. Hum Genet. 2019;138(5):493–499. doi:10.1007/s00439-018-1954-4
- 17.↑
Shaffer LG, Geretschlaeger A, Ramirez CJ, Ballif BC, Carl C. Quality assurance checklist and additional considerations for canine clinical genetic testing laboratories: a follow-up to the published standards and guidelines. Hum Genet. 2019;138(5):501–508. doi:10.1007/s00439-019-02013-9
