ArticleEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2013
Public attitudes towards genetic testing revisited: comparing opinions between 2002 and 2010.
Article in European journal of human genetics : EJHG, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 81 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
81 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments and Conjoint Analysis on Genetic Testing.The patient · 2022Pooled it
- The role of race and ethnicity in views toward and participation in genetic studies and precision medicine research in the United States: A systematic review of qualitative and quantitative studies.Molecular genetics & genomic medicine · 2020Pooled it
- Citizens' Attitudes, Knowledge, and Educational Needs in the Field of Omics Sciences: A Systematic Literature Review.Frontiers in genetics · 2020Pooled it
- Awareness, knowledge, perceptions, and attitudes towards genetic testing for cancer risk among ethnic minority groups: a systematic review.BMC public health · 2017Pooled it
- The survey of public perception and general knowledge of genomic research and medicine in Japan conducted by the Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development.Journal of human genetics · 2019Trial
- Motivation, Perception, and Treatment Beliefs in the Myocardial Infarction Genes (MI-GENES) Randomized Clinical Trial.Journal of genetic counseling · 2017Trial
- Understanding Barriers and Motivators of Familial Hypercholesterolemia Genetic Testing: Insights From the Singapore Public.Journal of genetic counseling · 2026Article
- Public perceptions of genetic sequencing in China: barriers and drivers of adoption.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2026Article
- Exploring willingness to pay out-of-pocket for genetic testing among ovarian cancer patients in Malaysia, a middle-income country in Asia.Journal of gynecologic oncology · 2026Observational
- Involving consumers in health research through the use of consumer panels: a scoping review.Research involvement and engagement · 2025Review
- Parental knowledge and attitudes toward genetic counseling and childhood genetic testing for congenital anomalies in Qatar.Journal of genetic counseling · 2025Article
- Acceptance and attitudes towards genetic cancer testing among German general practice patients: a cross-sectional survey.Family medicine and community health · 2025Article
- A Diagnosis or a Trap: Exploring the Psychosocial and Ethical Impacts of Autosomal Dominant Polycystic Kidney Disease Diagnosis.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Navigating family dynamics and ethical considerations in genetic diagnosis of pulmonary arterial hypertension: insights from in-depth semi-structured interviews.ERJ open research · 2025Article
- Investigating knowledge and attitudes toward genetic testing and counseling among palestinians.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- The genetic technologies questionnaire in the Greek-speaking population: the moral judgement of the lay public.Frontiers in genetics · 2025Article
- Where is the Ethical Debate around Phenotypic Screening of Prenatal Tissue Using Stem Cell-Derived Tissue Constructs?Stem cell reviews and reports · 2025Article
- A Swiss Cross-Sectional Study on Patients' Perspectives on Chronic Pain Management, Analgesic Treatment, and Genetic Susceptibility.Journal of pain research · 2025Article
- Moral judgment of genetic technologies: validation of the genetic technologies questionnaire in the German-speaking population.Frontiers in genetics · 2025Article
- Religious factors predict support for genomic medicine more strongly than politics, education, or trust: A survey of 4,939 adults in the United States.Frontiers in genetics · 2025Article
21 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Ten years after the Human Genome Project, medicine is still waiting for many of the promised benefits, and experts have tempered their high expectations. Public opinion on genetic testing has generally been favourable but is this still the case? The aim of this study is to compare public experiences, beliefs and expectations concerning genetic testing over the years (2002 vs 2010). A cross-sectional questionnaire survey was conducted using the Dutch Health Care Consumer Panel in 2002 and 2010. Responses to questions in identical wording were compared. In 2002 and 2010, 817 (63%) and 978 (70%) members responded, respectively. Awareness and reported use of genetic tests remained stable over time. In 2010, more respondents expected genetic testing to become more widely applied, believed that knowledge about the genetic background of disease helps people live longer, and that testing should be promoted more intensively. In 2010, they were also more interested in their own genetic make-up. On the one hand, the concern that a dichotomy would emerge between people with 'good genes' and 'bad genes' was higher. On the other hand, respondents thought that insurance companies would be less likely to demand a genetic test in order to calculate health insurance premiums. In conclusion, the results suggest that in 8 years, expectations of benefits and potential use of genetic testing have been raised among the public, resulting in more positive opinions. Worries on inequity remain, although worries about premium differentiation by insurance companies have decreased.
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.