ArticleJournal of public health research2012
Misuse (and abuse?) of the Concept of Empowerment.The Case of Online Offer of Predictive Direct-to-consumer Genetic Tests.
Article in Journal of public health research, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Internet-Based Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing: A Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2015Pooled it
- How Has the Rise of Direct-To-Consumer Genetic Testing Impacted Genetic Counselling Practice? A Scoping Review.Clinical genetics · 2026Article
- Medicine, market and communication: ethical considerations in regard to persuasive communication in direct-to-consumer genetic testing services.BMC medical ethics · 2018Article
- Obesity Genes, Personalized Medicine, and Public Health Policy.Current obesity reports · 2015Review
- A web search on environmental topics: what is the role of ranking?Telemedicine journal and e-health : the official journal of the American Telemedicine Association · 2013Article
- Nutritional supplements for diabetes sold on the internet: business or health promotion?BMC public health · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Using the field of direct-to-consumer genetic tests as a case in point, this paper argues against the misuse of the term empowerment, and calls for a regulation of its usage. The misleading assumption under certain current usages of the concept of empowerment is that it is enhanced by the provision of health information. While the information-empowerment correlation is misleading, if not wrong, the feeling of being empowered imposes an increasing burden of critical thinking on those people (patients and consumers) who have to evaluate that information and act for the benefit of their health.
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.