ArticleGenetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics2016
Consumers report lower confidence in their genetics knowledge following direct-to-consumer personal genomic testing.
Article in Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 53 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
53 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Sharing behavior and health care utilization following direct-to-consumer genetic testing: a systematic review.Open research Europe · 2025Pooled it
- Do genetic ancestry tests increase racial essentialism? Findings from a randomized controlled trial.PloS one · 2020Trial
- Impact of a decision aid about stratified ovarian cancer risk-management on women's knowledge and intentions: a randomised online experimental survey study.BMC public health · 2017Trial
- Evaluation of direct-to-consumer low-volume lab tests in healthy adults.The Journal of clinical investigation · 2016Trial
- Knowledge, attitudes, and self-efficacy toward cancer genetic testing among Black women with and without breast cancer.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2026Article
- Cross-Cultural Adaptation of the University of North Carolina Genomic Knowledge Scale: Translation and Psychometric Validation in Japanese Populations.Journal of genetic counseling · 2026Article
- Consumer Experiences and Perceptions of Genetic Counseling in Provider-Mediated Genetic Testing.Journal of genetic counseling · 2026Article
- Interaction of identity and beliefs with genetic literacy.American journal of human genetics · 2026Article
- Interest in Genetic Testing for Hereditary Cancer Risk: Associations with Genetic Familiarity, Self-Efficacy, and Sociodemographics.Public health genomics · 2026Article
- Outcomes from a Novel Approach to Studying Consumer Genetic Testing for Germline Cancer and Cardiovascular Risk.American journal of medical genetics. Part A · 2025Article
- Genetic knowledge and attitudes toward genomics across academic disciplines, a cross-sectional survey of university students in Samborondón, greater Guayaquil, Ecuador.Journal of community genetics · 2025Article
- Parental Communication With their Children about Cancer Risk and DTC Cascade Genetic Testing: Implications for Genetic Education and Counseling.American journal of medical genetics. Part A · 2025Article
- Developing a questionnaire to explore lay people's preferences for communicating hereditary conditions within families: insights from a cognitive interview study.Journal of community genetics · 2025Article
- Development and psychometric evaluation of nutrigenomics and personalized nutrition-related knowledge, attitude, and behavior questionnaire in dietetic students and professionals.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Psychosocial barriers and facilitators for cascade genetic testing in hereditary breast and ovarian cancer: a scoping review.Familial cancer · 2024Article
- Non-genetic physicians' knowledge, attitudes and behavior towards medical genetics.Wiener klinische Wochenschrift · 2024Article
- Assessing the general public's view of direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing and their interpretation of DTC website disclaimer messages.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2023Article
- Measuring high-risk parents' opinions about direct-to-consumer genetic testing for adult-onset inherited cancer syndromes in their adolescent and young adult children.Journal of genetic counseling · 2023Article
- Implementation of a culturally competentBMJ open · 2023Article
- A qualitative study exploring the consumer experience of receiving self-initiated polygenic risk scores from a third-party website.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 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
Abstract
purposeThe aim of this study was to measure changes to genetics knowledge and self-efficacy following personal genomic testing (PGT).
methodsNew customers of 23andMe and Pathway Genomics completed a series of online surveys. We measured genetics knowledge (nine true/false items) and genetics self-efficacy (five Likert-scale items) before receipt of results and 6 months after results and used paired methods to evaluate change over time. Correlates of change (e.g., decision regret) were identified using linear regression.
results998 PGT customers (59.9% female; 85.8% White; mean age 46.9 ± 15.5 years) were included in our analyses. Mean genetics knowledge score was 8.15 ± 0.95 (out of 9) at baseline and 8.25 ± 0.92 at 6 months (P = 0.0024). Mean self-efficacy score was 29.06 ± 5.59 (out of 35) at baseline and 27.7 ± 5.46 at 6 months (P < 0.0001); on each item, 30-45% of participants reported lower self-efficacy following PGT. Change in self-efficacy was positively associated with health-care provider consultation (P = 0.0042), impact of PGT on perceived control over one's health (P < 0.0001), and perceived value of PGT (P < 0.0001) and was negatively associated with decision regret (P < 0.0001).
conclusionLowered genetics self-efficacy following PGT may reflect an appropriate reevaluation by consumers in response to receiving complex genetic information.Genet Med 18 1, 65-72.
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.