Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25612474›Full record

ArticlePublic health genomics2015

A new approach to assessing affect and the emotional implications of personal genomic testing for common disease risk.

Suzanne C O'Neill, Kenneth P Tercyak, Chanza Baytop, Sharon Hensley Alford, Colleen M McBride

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Public health genomics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
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

5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Suzanne C O'NeillGeorgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, D.C., USA.
Kenneth P Tercyak
Chanza Baytop
Sharon Hensley Alford
Colleen M McBride
Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer CenterHenry Ford Health System · USNational Human Genome Research Institute · USSchulman, Ronca & Bucuvalas · US

Funding

Tissue Culture Shared ResourceP30CA051008 · NCI · GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY · PI STEPHEN W BYERS · 1990 to 2026
$71.5M
The HMO Cancer Research Network (CRN)U19CA079689 · NCI · KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN OF WASHINGTON · PI WAGNER, EDWARD H · 1999 to 2011
$62.6M
BIOBEHAVIORAL RESEARCH IN PUBLIC HEALTH GENETICSK18HG006754 · NHGRI · GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY · PI TERCYAK, KENNETH · 2011 to 2011
$89k
NCI NIH HHS CA079689NCI NIH HHS P30 CA051008NCI NIH HHS P30CA051008NCI NIH HHS U19 CA079689NHGRI NIH HHS HG006754NHGRI NIH HHS HHSN268200782096CNHGRI NIH HHS K18 HG006754NHLBI NIH HHS HHSN268200782096C
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsPersonal genomic testing (PGT) for common disease risk is becoming increasingly frequent, but little is known about people's array of emotional reactions to learning their genomic risk profiles and the psychological harms/benefits of PGT. We conducted a study of post-PGT affect, including positive, neutral, and negative states that may arise after testing.

methodsA total of 228 healthy adults received PGT for common disease variants and completed a semistructured research interview within 2 weeks of disclosure. The study participants reported how the PGT results made them feel in their own words. Using an iterative coding process, the responses were organized into three broad affective categories: negative, neutral, and positive affect.

resultsNeutral affect was the most prevalent response (53.9%), followed by positive affect (26.9%) and negative affect (19.2%). We found no differences by gender, race, or education.

conclusionsWhile <20% of participants reported negative affect in response to learning their genomic risk profile for common diseases, a majority experienced either neutral or positive emotions. These findings contribute to the growing evidence that PGT does not impose significant psychological harms. Moreover, they point to a need to better link theories and assessments in both emotional and cognitive processing to capitalize on PGT information for healthy behavior change.

Indexed as

EmotionsFeedback, PsychologicalGenetic TestingAdultAttitude to HealthData CollectionDisclosureFemaleGenetic Predisposition to DiseaseHumansMaleRisk Assessment

Identifiers

PMID25612474
PMCPMC4348333
OpenAlexW2064016137

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.