Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26820063›Full record

ArticleGenetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics2016

Adopting genetics: motivations and outcomes of personal genomic testing in adult adoptees.

Natalie M Baptista, Kurt D Christensen, Deanna Alexis Carere, Simon A Broadley, J Scott Roberts, Robert C Green

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

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 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
9.6field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 75 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Autonomy, Well-Being, and the Value of Genetic Testing for Adopted Persons.HEC forum : an interdisciplinary journal on hospitals' ethical and legal issues · 2018
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Personal Genomic Testing for Cancer Risk: Results From the Impact of Personal Genomics Study.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2017
    Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
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 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Natalie M BaptistaDivision of Genetics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4791-290X
Kurt D ChristensenDivision of Genetics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-4068-776X
Deanna Alexis CarereDivision of Genetics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Simon A BroadleySchool of Medicine, Gold Coast Campus, Griffith University, Queensland, Australia.
J Scott RobertsDepartment of Health Behavior and Health Education, University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Robert C GreenDivision of Genetics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Brigham and Women's Hospital · USGriffith University · AUBroad Institute · USMichigan Department of Health and Human Services · US

Funding

Integration of Whole Genome Sequencing into Clinical MedicineU01HG006500 · NHGRI · BRIGHAM AND WOMEN'S HOSPITAL · PI GREEN, ROBERT C. · 2012 to 2016
$11.5M
Risk Evaluation and Education for Alzheimer's Disease (REVEAL IV)R01HG002213 · NHGRI · BRIGHAM AND WOMEN'S HOSPITAL · PI GREEN, ROBERT C. · 1999 to 2012
$7.6M
Genome Sequence-Based Screening for Childhood Risk and Newborn IllnessU19HD077671 · NICHD · BRIGHAM AND WOMEN'S HOSPITAL · PI BEGGS, ALAN H., GREEN, ROBERT C. · 2013 to 2018
$6.1M
Impact of Direct to Consumer Genetic TestingR01HG005092 · NHGRI · BRIGHAM AND WOMEN'S HOSPITAL · PI GREEN, ROBERT C., ROBERTS, SCOTT · 2010 to 2012
$1.1M
CIHRNHGRI NIH HHS R01 HG002213NHGRI NIH HHS R01 HG005092NHGRI NIH HHS U01 HG006500NICHD NIH HHS U19 HD077671
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeAmerican adult adoptees may possess limited information about their biological families and turn to direct-to-consumer personal genomic testing (PGT) for genealogical and medical information. We investigated the motivations and outcomes of adoptees undergoing PGT using data from the Impact of Personal Genomics (PGen) Study.

methodsThe PGen Study surveyed new 23andMe and Pathway Genomics customers before and 6 months after receiving PGT results. Exploratory analyses compared adoptees' and nonadoptees' PGT attitudes, expectations, and experiences. We evaluated the association of adoption status with motivations for testing and postdisclosure actions using logistic regression models.

resultsOf 1,607 participants, 80 (5%) were adopted. As compared with nonadoptees, adoptees were more likely to cite limited knowledge of family health history (OR = 10.1; 95% CI = 5.7-19.5) and the opportunity to learn genetic disease risks (OR = 2.7; 95% CI = 1.6-4.8) as strong motivations for PGT. Of 922 participants who completed 6-month follow-up, there was no significant association between adoption status and PGT-motivated health-care utilization or health-behavior change.

conclusionPGT allows adoptees to gain otherwise inaccessible information about their genetic disease risks and ancestry, helping them to fill the void of an incomplete family health history.Genet Med 18 9, 924-932.

Indexed as

GenomicsMotivationAdoptionAdultFemaleGenetic Diseases, InbornGenetic TestingHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansMale

Identifiers

PMID26820063
PMCPMC4965328
OpenAlexW2394706615

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.