ArticleHuman genetics2016
Attitudes towards the sharing of genetic information with at-risk relatives: results of a quantitative survey.
Article in Human genetics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Public perspectives on healthcare professional-directed communication of hereditary genetic risks: a mixed-method systematic review.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2026Pooled it
- Article
- 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
- Who has the responsibility to inform relatives at risk of hereditary cancer? A population-based survey in Sweden.BMJ open · 2024Article
- Applying the framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions to increase family communication about hereditary cancer.PEC innovation · 2023Article
- Comparing the attitudes of physicians and non-physicians toward communicating a patient's BRCA1 mutation to a first-degree relative against a patient's wishes.Journal of community genetics · 2022Article
- Should Health Systems Share Genetic Findings With At-Risk Relatives When the Proband Is Deceased? Interviews With Individuals Diagnosed With Lynch Syndrome.Journal of patient-centered research and reviews · 2022Article
- A Focus Group Study of Perceptions of Genetic Risk Disclosure in Members of the Public in Sweden: "I'll Phone the Five Closest Ones, but What Happens to the Other Ten?"Journal of personalized medicine · 2021Article
- Healthcare professionals' responsibility for informing relatives at risk of hereditary disease.Journal of medical ethics · 2020Article
- Public support for healthcare-mediated disclosure of hereditary cancer risk information: Results from a population-based survey in Sweden.Hereditary cancer in clinical practice · 2020Article
- Evaluation of the template letter regarding the disclosure of genetic information within the family in France.Journal of community genetics · 2019Article
- Reasonable expectations of privacy in non-disclosure of familial genetic risk: What is it reasonable to expect?European journal of medical genetics · 2019Article
- Young adults' attitudes to sharing whole-genome sequencing information: a university-based survey.BMC medical genomics · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
To investigate public attitudes towards receiving genetic information arising from a test on a relative, 955 University of Sheffield students and staff were surveyed using disease vignettes. Strength of attitude was measured on whether, in the event of relevant information being discovered, they, as an at-risk relative, would want to be informed, whether the at-risk relative's interest should override proband confidentiality, and, if they had been the proband, willingness to give up confidentiality to inform such relatives. Results indicated considerably more complexity to the decision-making than simple statistical risk. Desire for information only slightly increased with risk of disease manifestation [log odds 0.05 (0.04, 0.06) per percentage point increase in manifestation risk]. Condition preventability was the primary factor increasing desire [modifiable baseline, non-preventable log odds -1.74 (-2.04, -1.44); preventable 0.64 (0.34, 0.95)]. Disease seriousness also increased desire [serious baseline, non-serious log odds -0.89 (-1.19, -0.59); fatal 0.55 (0.25, 0.86)]. Individuals with lower education levels exhibited much greater desire to be informed [GCSE log odds 1.67 (0.64, 2.66)]. Age did not affect desire. Our findings suggest that attitudes were influenced more by disease characteristics than statistical risk. Respondents generally expressed strong attitudes demonstrating that this was not an issue which people felt ambivalent about. We provide estimates of the British population in favour/against disclosure for various disease scenarios.
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.