ArticleGenome2013
Public attitudes towards genomic risk profiling as a component of routine population screening.
Article in Genome, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 2 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Psychosocial implications, acceptability and ethics of screening for paediatric type 1 diabetes: a systematic review and mixed methods evidence synthesis.Diabetologia · 2026Pooled it
- Citizens' Attitudes, Knowledge, and Educational Needs in the Field of Omics Sciences: A Systematic Literature Review.Frontiers in genetics · 2020Pooled it
- Public and parent perspectives on genomic sequencing in newborn screening: a scoping review.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2026Review
- Implementation considerations for risk-tailored cancer screening in the population: A scoping review.Preventive medicine · 2024Article
- IMPAACT: IMproving the PArticipAtion of older people in policy decision-making on common health CondiTions - a study protocol.BMJ open · 2024Article
- Implementation considerations for offering personal genomic risk information to the public: a qualitative study.BMC public health · 2020Article
- Cost-Effectiveness of Personalized Screening for Colorectal Cancer Based on Polygenic Risk and Family History.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2020Article
- Identifying Perceptions and Preferences of the General Public Concerning Universal Screening of Children for Familial Hypercholesterolaemia.Public health genomics · 2019Article
- Costs and outcomes of Lynch syndrome screening in the Australian colorectal cancer population.Journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2018Article
- Implementation of personalized medicine in Central-Eastern Europe: pitfalls and potentials based on citizen's attitude.The EPMA journal · 2018Article
- Attitudes to incorporating genomic risk assessments into population screening programs: the importance of purpose, context and deliberation.BMC medical genomics · 2016Article
- Assessing the Costs and Cost-Effectiveness of Genomic Sequencing.Journal of personalized medicine · 2015Review
- Societal preferences for the return of incidental findings from clinical genomic sequencing: a discrete-choice experiment.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2015Article
- The Human Genome Project, and recent advances in personalized genomics.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2015Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Including low penetrance genomic variants in population-based screening might enable personalization of screening intensity and follow up. The application of genomics in this way requires formal evaluation. Even if clinically beneficial, uptake would still depend on the attitudes of target populations. We developed a deliberative workshop on two hypothetical applications (in colorectal cancer and newborn screening) in which we applied stepped, neutrally-framed, information sets. Data were collected using nonparticipant observation, free-text comments by individual participants, and a structured survey. Qualitative data were transcribed and analyzed using thematic content analysis. Eight workshops were conducted with 170 individuals (120 colorectal cancer screening and 50 newborn screening for type 1 diabetes). The use of information sets promoted informed deliberation. In both contexts, attitudes appeared to be heavily informed by assessments of the likely validity of the test results and its personal and health care utility. Perceived benefits included the potential for early intervention, prevention, and closer monitoring while concerns related to costs, education needs regarding the probabilistic nature of risk, the potential for worry, and control of access to personal genomic information. Differences between the colorectal cancer and newborn screening groups appeared to reflect different assessments of potential personal utility, particularly regarding prevention.
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.