Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25622080›Full record

ArticleHealth psychology : official journal of the Division of Health Psychology, American Psychological Association2015

Effects of racial and ethnic group and health literacy on responses to genomic risk information in a medically underserved population.

Kimberly A Kaphingst, Jewel D Stafford, Lucy D'Agostino McGowan, Joann Seo, Christina R Lachance, Melody S Goodman

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health psychology : official journal of the Division of Health Psychology, American Psychological Association, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 39 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Increasing access to individualized medicine: a matched-cohort study examining Latino participant experiences of genomic screening.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2021
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Kimberly A KaphingstDivision of Public Health Sciences, Department of Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine.
Jewel D StaffordDivision of Public Health Sciences, Department of Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine.
Lucy D'Agostino McGowanDivision of Public Health Sciences, Department of Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine.
Joann SeoDivision of Public Health Sciences, Department of Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine.
Christina R LachanceSocial and Behavioral Research Branch, National Human Genome Research Institute, National Institutes of Health.
Melody S GoodmanDivision of Public Health Sciences, Department of Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine.
Washington University in St. Louis · USNational Institutes of Health · US

Funding

Washington University Center for Cellular ImagingP30CA091842 · NCI · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI TIMOTHY J. EBERLEIN · 2001 to 2026
$128.0M
Intramural NIH HHSNCI NIH HHS P30 CA091842NCI NIH HHS P30CA91842
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveFew studies have examined how individuals respond to genomic risk information for common, chronic diseases. This randomized study examined differences in responses by type of genomic information (genetic test/family history) and disease condition (diabetes/heart disease), and by race/ethnicity in a medically underserved population.

methods1,057 English-speaking adults completed a survey containing 1 of 4 vignettes (2-by-2 randomized design). Differences in dependent variables (i.e., interest in receiving genomic assessment, discussing with doctor or family, changing health habits) by experimental condition and race/ethnicity were examined using chi-squared tests and multivariable regression analysis.

resultsNo significant differences were found in dependent variables by type of genomic information or disease condition. In multivariable models, Hispanics were more interested in receiving a genomic assessment than Whites (OR = 1.93; p < .0001); respondents with marginal (OR = 1.54; p = .005) or limited (OR = 1.85; p = .009) health literacy had greater interest than those with adequate health literacy. Blacks (OR = 1.78; p = .001) and Hispanics (OR = 1.85; p = .001) had greater interest in discussing information with family than Whites. Non-Hispanic Blacks (OR = 1.45; p = .04) had greater interest in discussing genomic information with a doctor than Whites. Blacks (β = -0.41; p < .001) and Hispanics (β = -0.25; p = .033) intended to change fewer health habits than Whites; health literacy was negatively associated with number of health habits participants intended to change.

conclusionsFindings suggest that race/ethnicity may affect responses to genomic risk information. Additional research could examine how cognitive representations of this information differ across racial/ethnic groups. Health literacy is also critical to consider in developing approaches to communicating genomic information.

Indexed as

EthnicityGenomicsHealth LiteracyMedically Underserved AreaRacial GroupsAdultCultural CharacteristicsData CollectionFemaleGenetic Predisposition to DiseaseHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansMaleRandom AllocationRegression AnalysisRisk

Identifiers

PMID25622080
PMCPMC4856065
OpenAlexW1986039259

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.