ArticleBMC medical genomics2016
Experiences and attitudes of residents regarding a community-based genome cohort study in Japan: a population-based, cross-sectional study.
Article in BMC medical genomics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Citizens' Attitudes, Knowledge, and Educational Needs in the Field of Omics Sciences: A Systematic Literature Review.Frontiers in genetics · 2020Pooled it
- The survey of public perception and general knowledge of genomic research and medicine in Japan conducted by the Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development.Journal of human genetics · 2019Trial
- Erratum to: Experiences and attitudes of residents regarding a community-based genome cohort study in Japan: a population-based, cross-sectional study.BMC medical genomics · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBecause of the rapid development in genomics, more research findings have emerged. However, the association between society and research results remains controversial. This article examines the experiences and attitudes of residents regarding a community-based genomic cohort study.
methodsThis study was conducted as a part of the health survey of the City Health Promotion section. At the conclusion of the first stage of the project, a self-administered questionnaire was mailed to a random sample of 2,500 residents in 2012.
resultsThe response rate was 59 % (n = 1477/2500). The findings show that 70 % of males and 50 % of females knew nothing about the project. Females and elderly people were more likely to have knowledge of the study, indicating that self-rated understanding of the terminology is statistically associated with the level of awareness regarding the project. In addition, those who were aware of the project were also aware of the benefits of research utilizing genetic information, whereas unaware respondents, particularly males, believed that unexpected negative effects may occur. Those with higher self-rated understanding of the terminology and higher awareness of benefit of the research utilizing genetic information had more positive attitudes toward undergoing drug susceptibility genetic testing, indicating that the awareness of project in females and concerns toward genetic research are not statistically associated with the willingness to undergo.
conclusionsThis study suggests that a community-based genome cohort project helps raise awareness of benefit of genetic research and that knowledge, however, does not directly affect the willingness to participate in related activities, such as drug susceptibility genetic testing. Therefore, additional research that focuses on the circular relationship between risk and action must be conducted in the future.
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.