SynthesisJournal of genetic counseling2014
Predictors of genetic testing decisions: a systematic review and critique of the literature.
Synthesis in Journal of genetic counseling, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 48 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
48 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- An assessment of the impact of pharmacogenomics on health disparities: a systematic literature review.Pharmacogenomics · 2017Pooled it
- Importance of Prior Patient Interactions With the Healthcare System to Engaging With Pretest Cancer Genetic Services via Digital Health Tools Among Unaffected Primary Care Patients: Findings From the BRIDGE Trial.Health services research · 2026Trial
- Genetic Testing in a Population-Based Sample of Breast and Ovarian Cancer Survivors from the REACH Randomized Trial: Cost Barriers and Moderators of Counseling Mode.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2017Trial
- Precision Medicine in Rural Settings: Patient Perspectives on Clinician-Ordered Genetic Testing.Research square · 2026Article
- A survey of factors influencing the intention to undergo genetic testing in patients with cardiovascular disease in Japan.Journal of genetic counseling · 2026Article
- Barriers and motivators for BRCA genetic testing in Japan.Journal of genetic counseling · 2026Article
- Uptake of Polygenic Risk Testing for Glaucoma in Unaffected Individuals.Translational vision science & technology · 2026Article
- Addressing genetic discrimination for stronger legal protections and enhanced public awareness.NPJ genomic medicine · 2025Article
- Psychosocial predictors of hereditary cancer genetic testing motivation in untested individuals.Journal of genetic counseling · 2025Article
- Prevalence of clinician-ordered genetic testing in rural and urban United States counties: An analysis of the 2022 Health Information National Trends Survey.Preventive medicine reports · 2025Article
- Acceptance and attitudes towards genetic cancer testing among German general practice patients: a cross-sectional survey.Family medicine and community health · 2025Article
- Ethical and social issues in prediction of risk of severe mental illness: a scoping review and thematic analysis.BMC psychiatry · 2025Article
- Impact of barriers and motivators on intention and confidence to undergo hereditary cancer genetic testing.Journal of genetic counseling · 2025Article
- Factors influencing patient decision-making on a multimodal precision medicine algorithm for depression: a qualitative European multicentre study of the PROMPT consortium.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2025Article
- Demographic Determinants Influencing the Adoption of Genetic Testing for Cardiovascular Diseases in Japan - Insights From a Large-Scale Online Survey.Circulation reports · 2024Article
- Experiences of Family Communication and Cascade Genetic Testing for Hereditary Cancer in Medically Underserved Populations-A Qualitative Study.Cancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.) · 2024Article
- Development of a novel measure of advanced cancer patients' perceived utility of secondary germline findings from tumor genomic profiling.PEC innovation · 2023Article
- Attitudes about pharmacogenomic testing vary by healthcare specialty.Pharmacogenomics · 2023Article
- Framing the Family: A Qualitative Exploration of Factors That Shape Family-Level Experience of Pediatric Genomic Sequencing.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Future-oriented Emotions and Decisions to Receive Genomic Testing Results Among U.S. Adults of African Ancestry.Annals of behavioral medicine : a publication of the Society of Behavioral Medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Genetic testing is increasingly available in medical settings and direct-to-consumer. However, the large and growing literature on genetic testing decisions is rife with conflicting findings, inconsistent methodology, and uneven attention across test types and across predictors of genetic testing decisions. Existing reviews of the literature draw broad conclusions but sacrifice nuanced analysis that with a closer look reveals far more inconsistency than homogeny across studies. The goals of this paper are to provide a systematic review of the empirical work on predictors of genetic testing decisions, highlight areas of consistency and inconsistency, and suggest productive directions for future research. We included all studies that provided quantitative analysis of subjective (e.g., perceived risk, perceived benefits of testing) and/or objective (e.g., family history, sociodemographic variables) predictors of genetic testing interest, intentions, or uptake, which produced a sample of 115 studies. From this review, we conclude that self-reported and test-related (as opposed to disorder-related or objective) predictors are relatively consistent across studies but that theoretically-driven efforts to examine testing interest across test types are sorely needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24719248What 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.