TABLE 2.

Characteristics of Respondents Who Were Aware of Direct-to-Consumer Nutrigenomic Tests: State Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System and National HealthStyles Surveys, 2006

	Oregon		Michigan		Utah		Nationala
	%	Pb	%	Pb	%	Pb	%	Pb
Total aware of direct-to-consumer nutrigenomic tests	24.4		7.6		19.7		14
Gender		.660		.039		.055		.056
Men	24.9c		6.7		17.3		13
Women	23.9		8.4		21.6		14
Race/ethnicity		.103		.794		.483		.066
White	25.0		7.7		19.6		14
Black	NA		6.5		NA		11
Hispanic	NA		8.6		20.2		13
Other	16.4		6.9		14.1		18
Age, y		<.001		.007		<.001		<.001
18–24	10.3		3.7		14.3		15
25–34	20.3		7.6		15.3		17
35–44	24.0		7.5		17.5		14
45–54	27.8		9.7		26.9		15
55–64	33.9		8.6		26.9		14
≥ 65	26.8		7.2		21.4		9
Household income,d $		.031		<.001		.074		<.001
< 25 000	21.6		4.7		14.2		11
25 000–49 999	21.4		6.6		18.8		13
≥ 50 000	28.2		9.5		21.4		16
Education levele		<.001		<.001		<.001		<.001
High school or less	16.3		5.2		13.1		9
At least some college	25.4		6.9		18.1		15
College graduate	33.0		11.6		28.6		19

Note. NA = not applicable (because of small sample size).

^aResults from Goddard et al.¹⁰

^bP values were obtained from the unadjusted χ² test compared with respondents who were not aware of health-related direct-to-consumer nutrigenomic tests within the categorical levels.

^cPercentages refer to row percentages by state or national survey, e.g., 24.9% of men in Oregon were aware of health-related direct-to-consumer nutrigenomic tests, compared with 24.4% of the entire population in Oregon.

^dFor the national survey, the categories for household income were < $25 000, $25 000 to $59 999, and ≥ $60 000.

^eFor the national survey, the categories for education level were high school or less, at least some college, and graduate or professional.