Trial reportPublic health genomics2014
Impact of delivery models on understanding genomic risk for type 2 diabetes.
Trial report in Public health genomics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 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
19 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Barriers and Facilitators for Population Genetic Screening in Healthy Populations: A Systematic Review.Frontiers in genetics · 2022Pooled it
- A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials to Assess Outcomes of Genetic Counseling.Journal of genetic counseling · 2017Pooled it
- The effect of communicating the genetic risk of cardiometabolic disorders on motivation and actual engagement in preventative lifestyle modification and clinical outcome: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.The British journal of nutrition · 2016Pooled it
- Internet-Based Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing: A Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2015Pooled it
- Web Platform vs In-Person Genetic Counselor for Return of Carrier Results From Exome Sequencing: A Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA internal medicine · 2018Trial
- Outcomes of a Randomized Controlled Trial of Genomic Counseling for Patients Receiving Personalized and Actionable Complex Disease Reports.Journal of genetic counseling · 2017Trial
- Article
- Advancing the communication of genetic risk for cardiometabolic diseases: a critical interpretive synthesis.BMC medicine · 2023Article
- Considerations for developing regulations for direct-to-consumer genetic testing: a scoping review using the 3-I framework.Journal of community genetics · 2022Article
- An Intervention Study on Children's Healthy Joint Attention Skills Based on a Mixed Instructional Approach of DTT and PRT.Journal of healthcare engineering · 2022Article
- A scoping review of social and behavioral science research to translate genomic discoveries into population health impact.Translational behavioral medicine · 2021Article
- A Web Portal for Communicating Polygenic Risk Score Results for Health Care Use-The P5 Study.Frontiers in genetics · 2021Review
- Neutral, Negative, or Negligible? Changes in Patient Perceptions of Disease Risk Following Receipt of a Negative Genomic Screening Result.Journal of personalized medicine · 2020Article
- Personalized Medicine Implementation with Non-traditional Data Sources: A Conceptual Framework and Survey of the Literature.Yearbook of medical informatics · 2019Review
- Internet Versus Virtual Reality Settings for Genomics Information Provision.Cyberpsychology, behavior and social networking · 2019Article
- Behavioural changes, sharing behaviour and psychological responses after receiving direct-to-consumer genetic test results: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of community genetics · 2018Review
- Counselees' Perspectives of Genomic Counseling Following Online Receipt of Multiple Actionable Complex Disease and Pharmacogenomic Results: a Qualitative Research Study.Journal of genetic counseling · 2017Article
- How, who, and when: preferences for delivery of genome sequencing results among women diagnosed with breast cancer at a young age.Molecular genetics & genomic medicine · 2016Article
- Genomic-based tools for the risk assessment, management, and prevention of type 2 diabetes.The application of clinical genetics · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundGenetic information, typically communicated in-person by genetic counselors, can be challenging to comprehend; delivery of this information online--as is becoming more common--has the potential of increasing these challenges.
methodsTo address the impact of the mode of delivery of genomic risk information, 300 individuals were recruited from the general public and randomized to receive genomic risk information for type 2 diabetes mellitus in-person from a board-certified genetic counselor or online through the testing company's website.
resultsParticipants were asked to indicate their genomic risk and overall lifetime risk as reported on their test report as well as to interpret their genomic risk (increased, decreased, or same as population). For each question, 59% of participants correctly indicated their risk. Participants who received their results in-person were more likely than those who reviewed their results on-line to correctly interpret their genomic risk (72 vs. 47%, p = 0.0002) and report their actual genomic risk (69 vs. 49%, p = 0.002).
conclusionsThe delivery of personal genomic risk through a trained health professional resulted in significantly higher comprehension. Therefore, if the online delivery of genomic test results is to become more widespread, further evaluation of this method of communication may be needed to ensure the effective presentation of results to promote comprehension.
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.