Motivations, concerns and preferences of personal genome sequencing research participants: Baseline findings from the HealthSeq project.

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

17 citing papers in PubMed.

1. An Ethical Approach to Genomic Privacy Preserving Technology Development.Proceedings. IEEE International Conference on Healthcare Informatics · 2024
   Article
2. Design and rationale of GUARDD-US: A pragmatic, randomized trial of genetic testing for APOL1 and pharmacogenomic predictors of antihypertensive efficacy in patients with hypertension.Contemporary clinical trials · 2022
   Article
3. Primary Care Implementation of Genomic Population Health Screening Using a Large Gene Sequencing Panel.Frontiers in genetics · 2022
   Article
4. Comprehension and personal value of negative non-diagnostic genetic panel testing.Journal of genetic counseling · 2021
   Article
5. Implementation considerations for offering personal genomic risk information to the public: a qualitative study.BMC public health · 2020
   Article
6. Clinical utility of genomic sequencing.Current opinion in pediatrics · 2019
   Review
7. Attitudes toward the right to autonomous decision-making in psychiatric genetic testing: Controversial and context-dependent.American journal of medical genetics. Part B, Neuropsychiatric genetics : the official publication of the International Society of Psychiatric Genetics · 2019
   Article
8. Research participants' preferences for receiving genetic risk information: a discrete choice experiment.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2019
   Article
9. Much ado about nothing: A qualitative study of the experiences of an average-risk population receiving results of exome sequencing.Journal of genetic counseling · 2019
   Article
10. Genomic sequencing identifies secondary findings in a cohort of parent study participants.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2018
    Article
11. "I would like to discuss it further with an expert": a focus group study of Finnish adults' perspectives on genetic secondary findings.Journal of community genetics · 2018
    Article
12. Broad Consent for Research on Biospecimens: The Views of Actual Donors at Four U.S. Medical Centers.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2018
    Article
13. Choices for return of primary and secondary genomic research results of 790 members of families with Mendelian disease.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2017
    Article
14. My Identical Twin Sequenced our Genome.Journal of genetic counseling · 2017
    Article
15. Research participant interest in primary, secondary, and incidental genomic findings.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2016
    Article
16. Impact of Genomic Counseling on Informed Decision-Making among ostensibly Healthy Individuals Seeking Personal Genome Sequencing: the HealthSeq Project.Journal of genetic counseling · 2016
    Article
17. Assessing the Costs and Cost-Effectiveness of Genomic Sequencing.Journal of personalized medicine · 2015
    Review

Corrections and comments

• Erratum for
  Motivations, concerns and preferences of personal genome sequencing research participants: Baseline findings from the HealthSeq project.2016

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.