ArticleGenetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics2012
Public awareness and use of direct-to-consumer personal genomic tests from four state population-based surveys, and implications for clinical and public health practice.
Article in Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
26 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Sharing behavior and health care utilization following direct-to-consumer genetic testing: a systematic review.Open research Europe · 2025Pooled it
- Citizens' Attitudes, Knowledge, and Educational Needs in the Field of Omics Sciences: A Systematic Literature Review.Frontiers in genetics · 2020Pooled it
- Racial and ethnic differences in knowledge and attitudes about genetic testing in the US: Systematic review.Journal of genetic counseling · 2019Pooled it
- Internet-Based Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing: A Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2015Pooled it
- Disclosure of genetic information and change in dietary intake: a randomized controlled trial.PloS one · 2014Trial
- Trends in awareness and uptake of genetic testing among the United States population, 2011-2022.Journal of community genetics · 2026Article
- Real-world genetic testing data of ovarian cancer patients: Informing counseling and risk reduction in patients over age seventy.Gynecologic oncology · 2026Article
- Carotenoid Status and Psychological Impact of Presymptomatic Macular Degeneration Genetic Risk Assessment: The MAGENTA Randomized Trial.Ophthalmology science · 2026Article
- Predictors of stakeholders' intention to adopt nutrigenomics.Genes & nutrition · 2020Article
- What do people think about genetics? A systematic review.Journal of community genetics · 2019Review
- Current knowledge and interest of French Canadians regarding nutrigenetics.Genes & nutrition · 2019Article
- Differences in attitudes toward genetic testing among the public, patients, and health-care professionals in Korea.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2018Article
- From public health genomics to precision public health: a 20-year journey.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2018Review
- Implementation of personalized medicine in Central-Eastern Europe: pitfalls and potentials based on citizen's attitude.The EPMA journal · 2018Article
- Racial minority group interest in direct-to-consumer genetic testing: findings from the PGen study.Journal of community genetics · 2017Article
- Does personal genome testing drive service utilization in an adult preventive medicine clinic?Journal of community genetics · 2017Article
- Attitudes towards personal genomics among older Swiss adults: An exploratory study.Applied & translational genomics · 2016Article
- Reclassification of genetic-based risk predictions as GWAS data accumulate.Genome medicine · 2016Article
- Public Awareness of Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Tests: Findings from the 2013 U.S. Health Information National Trends Survey.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2015Article
- Public awareness of genetic nondiscrimination laws in four states and perceived importance of life insurance protections.Journal of genetic counseling · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeDirect-to-consumer personal genomic tests are widely available, but population-based data are limited on awareness and use of these tests among the general public in the United States.
methodsWe assessed awareness and use of direct-to-consumer personal genomic tests in Connecticut, Michigan, Oregon, and Utah using the 2009 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System and compared the state results to the 2008 national HealthStyles survey results.
resultsAwareness was the highest in Oregon (29.1%) and the lowest in Michigan (15.8%). Factors associated with awareness across all states and nationally were higher education, higher income, and increasing age, except among those 75 years or older. Less than 1% of respondents had used the tests, with about one-half to three-quarters of those sharing the results with a health-care provider.
conclusionsAwareness of direct-to-consumer genetic tests is greater in this study as compared with a related study conducted in 2006, whereas use is similarly low in both studies. The few respondents who reported using the tests often reported sharing their results with their health-care provider, indicating an important opportunity for health-care providers to offer patient education regarding these tests. Public health agencies have important roles in surveillance, education, and policy development on direct-to-consumer genomic tests.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.