Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23406207›Full record

Trial reportGenetic testing and molecular biomarkers2013

Public knowledge of and attitudes toward genetics and genetic testing.

Susanne B Haga, William T Barry, Rachel Mills, Geoffrey S Ginsburg, Laura Svetkey, Jennifer Sullivan, Huntington F Willard

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Genetic testing and molecular biomarkers, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 162 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
162citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

162 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Article
  13. Self-Protection Motivation and Its Psychological Construction: A Process Model Distinguishing Two Unique Motivational Orientations.Personality and social psychology review : an official journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc · 2026
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Observational
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

102 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Susanne B HagaInstitute for Genome Sciences and Policy, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708, USA. susanne.haga@duke.edu
William T Barry
Rachel Mills
Geoffrey S Ginsburg
Laura Svetkey
Jennifer Sullivan
Huntington F Willard

Funding

Implications of Health and Genetic Literacy for Genomic MedicineR21HL096573 · NHLBI · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI HAGA, SUSANNE · 2010 to 2011
$429k
NHLBI NIH HHS 1R21HL096573-01A1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundVariable health literacy and genetic knowledge may pose significant challenges to engaging the general public in personal genomics, specifically with respect to promoting risk comprehension and healthy behaviors.

methodsWe are conducting a multistage study of individual responses to genomic risk information for Type 2 diabetes mellitus. A total of 300 individuals were recruited from the general public in Durham, North Carolina: 60% self-identified as White; 70% female; and 65% have a college degree. As part of the baseline survey, we assessed genetic knowledge and attitudes toward genetic testing.

resultsScores of factual knowledge of genetics ranged from 50% to 100% (average=84%), with significant differences in relation to racial groups, the education level, and age. Scores were significantly higher on questions pertaining to the inheritance and causes of disease (mean score 90%) compared to scientific questions (mean score 77.4%). Scores on the knowledge survey were significantly higher than scores from European populations. Participants' perceived knowledge of the social consequences of genetic testing was significantly lower than their perceived knowledge of the medical uses of testing. More than half agreed with the statement that testing may affect a person's ability to obtain health insurance (51.3%) and 16% were worried about the consequences of testing for chances of finding a job.

conclusionsDespite the relatively high educational status and genetic knowledge of the study population, we find an imbalance of knowledge between scientific and medical concepts related to genetics as well as between the medical applications and societal consequences of testing, suggesting that more effort is needed to present the benefits, risks, and limitations of genetic testing, particularly, at the social and personal levels, to ensure informed decision making.

Indexed as

Genetic TestingHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeAdolescentAdultAgedData CollectionDecision MakingFemaleGenetic Diseases, InbornGenetic Predisposition to DiseaseGenomicsHumansMaleMiddle AgedNorth CarolinaYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID23406207
PMCPMC3609633

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.