Trial reportPsychology & health2016
Online discussion effects on intention to participate in genetic research: A longitudinal experimental study.
Trial report in Psychology & health, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Patient engagement and shared decision-making in trial recruitment intervention studies: a systematic review.Research involvement and engagement · 2025Review
- Describing the content of trial recruitment interventions using the TIDieR reporting checklist: a systematic methodology review.BMC medical research methodology · 2024Article
- Using the diffusion of innovations model to guide participant engagement in the genomics era.Journal of genetic counseling · 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
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe National Human Genome Research Institute has emphasised community engagement and public dialogue in the U.S. on issues related to genetics. This study examines how online discussions among the U.S. public directly or indirectly influence psychosocial constructs of the Theory of Planned Behavior, including intention to take part in genetic research.
designAfter completing the baseline questionnaire, participants (n = 3754) were randomly assigned to one of the following three groups: the discussion group, the pre-/post-only group and the End-of-Project group. The discussion group (n = 1824) was invited and participated in up to three online discussions, which were held from November 2008 to May 2009.
main outcome measuresBehavioural intention, beliefs, attitudes, subjective norm and perceived behavioural control variables were assessed.
resultsThe most interesting finding was that those participating in online discussions had fewer negative beliefs about volunteering for genetic research, which in turn contributed to more positive attitudes, increased injunctive and descriptive norms and enhanced behavioural control. These relationships, then, were associated with higher intention to participate in genetic research.
conclusionThese findings suggest that continuous public discussions seem to positively affect volunteer intention for genetic research through ameliorating fears of negative consequences.
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.