ArticleAnnals of internal medicine2016
Consumer Perceptions of Interactions With Primary Care Providers After Direct-to-Consumer Personal Genomic Testing.
Article in Annals of internal medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 56 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
56 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
- Comparing models of delivery for cancer genetics services among patients receiving primary care who meet criteria for genetic evaluation in two healthcare systems: BRIDGE randomized controlled trial.BMC health services research · 2021Trial
- EMR documentation of physician-patient communication following genomic counseling for actionable complex disease and pharmacogenomic results.Clinical genetics · 2017Trial
- Elective genomic sequencing for adults in research, clinical and commercial contexts.BMC medical genomics · 2026Article
- Elective genomic sequencing for adults in research, clinical and commercial contexts.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- Nephrologists' Views on a Workflow for Returning Genetic Results to Research Participants.Kidney international reports · 2024Article
- Genetics healthcare providers' experiences counseling patients with results from consumer genomic testing.Molecular genetics & genomic medicine · 2024Article
- Health care utilization and behavior changes after workplace genetic testing at a large US health care system.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2024Article
- Regulation of Laboratory-Developed Tests in Preventive Oncology: Emerging Needs and Opportunities.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2023Review
- Challenges and Opportunities in Engaging Primary Care Providers in BRCA Testing: Results from the BFOR Study.Journal of general internal medicine · 2022Observational
- Considerations for developing regulations for direct-to-consumer genetic testing: a scoping review using the 3-I framework.Journal of community genetics · 2022Article
- Family secrets: Experiences and outcomes of participating in direct-to-consumer genetic relative-finder services.American journal of human genetics · 2022Article
- Perspectives on Consumer and Clinical Genetic Testing Education among Medical Students in West Texas.Journal of community hospital internal medicine perspectives · 2022Article
- Pharmacogenomic testing to support prescribing in primary care: a structured review of implementation models.Pharmacogenomics · 2021Review
- Preparing genomic revolution: Attitudes, clinical practice, and training needs in delivering genetic counseling in primary care in Hong Kong and Shenzhen, China.Molecular genetics & genomic medicine · 2021Article
- May direct-to-consumer genetic testing have an impact on general practitioners' daily practice? a cross-sectional study of patients' intentions towards this approach.BMC family practice · 2021Article
- Use of SNP chips to detect rare pathogenic variants: retrospective, population based diagnostic evaluation.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2021Article
- Pharmacogenomics cascade testing (PhaCT): a novel approach for preemptive pharmacogenomics testing to optimize medication therapy.The pharmacogenomics journal · 2021Review
- The Need for Education and Clinical Best Practice Guidelines in the Era of Direct-to-Consumer Genomic Testing.JMIR medical education · 2020Article
- Direct-to-consumer genetic testing for factor V Leiden and prothrombin 20210G>A: the consumer experience.Molecular genetics & genomic medicine · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDirect-to-consumer (DTC) personal genomic testing (PGT) allows individuals to learn about their genetic makeup without going through a physician, but some consumers share their results with their primary care provider (PCP).
objectiveTo describe the characteristics and perceptions of DTC PGT consumers who discuss their results with their PCP.
designLongitudinal, prospective cohort study.
settingOnline survey before and 6 months after results.
participantsDTC PGT consumers. MEASUREMENTS: Consumer satisfaction with the DTC PGT experience; whether and, if so, how many results could be used to improve health; how many results were not understood; and beliefs about the PCP's understanding of genetics. Participants were asked with whom they had discussed their results. Genetic reports were linked to survey responses.
resultsAmong 1026 respondents, 63% planned to share their results with a PCP. At 6-month follow-up, 27% reported having done so, and 8% reported sharing with another health care provider only. Common reasons for not sharing results with a health care provider were that the results were not important enough (40%) or that the participant did not have time to do so (37%). Among participants who discussed results with their PCP, 35% were very satisfied with the encounter, and 18% were not at all satisfied. Frequently identified themes in participant descriptions of these encounters were actionability of the results or use in care (32%), PCP engagement or interest (25%), and lack of PCP engagement or interest (22%). LIMITATION: Participants may not be representative of all DTC PGT consumers.
conclusionA comprehensive picture of DTC PGT consumers who shared their results with a health care provider is presented. The proportion that shares results is expected to increase with time after testing as consumers find opportunities for discussion at later appointments or if results become relevant as medical needs evolve. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institutes of Health.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26928821What 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.