ArticleBMC medical genomics2016
Attitudes to incorporating genomic risk assessments into population screening programs: the importance of purpose, context and deliberation.
Article in BMC medical genomics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Psychosocial implications, acceptability and ethics of screening for paediatric type 1 diabetes: a systematic review and mixed methods evidence synthesis.Diabetologia · 2026Pooled it
- Barriers and Facilitators for Population Genetic Screening in Healthy Populations: A Systematic Review.Frontiers in genetics · 2022Pooled it
- How participation in deliberative engagement affects awareness of, and attitudes towards, genomics research and data sharing: evidence from rural Ghana.BMC medical ethics · 2025Article
- Publics' knowledge of, attitude to and motivation towards health-related genomics: a scoping review.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2024Article
- Implementation considerations for risk-tailored cancer screening in the population: A scoping review.Preventive medicine · 2024Article
- IMPAACT: IMproving the PArticipAtion of older people in policy decision-making on common health CondiTions - a study protocol.BMJ open · 2024Article
- Lack of familiarity with genetic testing among patients in Ireland with Cancer.Irish journal of medical science · 2021Article
- The implementation of pharmacogenomics into UK general practice: a qualitative study exploring barriers, challenges and opportunities.Journal of community genetics · 2020Article
- Implementation considerations for offering personal genomic risk information to the public: a qualitative study.BMC public health · 2020Article
- Public perception of predictive cancer genetic testing and research in Oregon.Journal of genetic counseling · 2020Article
- Cost-Effectiveness of Personalized Screening for Colorectal Cancer Based on Polygenic Risk and Family History.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2020Article
- Evaluating the Integration of Genomics into Cancer Screening Programmes: Challenges and Opportunities.Current genetic medicine reports · 2019Review
- Introduction to the article collection 'Translation in healthcare: ethical, legal, and social implications'.BMC medical ethics · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe use of an overall risk assessment based on genomic information is consistent with precision medicine. Despite the enthusiasm, there is a need for public engagement on the appropriate use of such emerging technologies in order to frame meaningful evaluations of utility, including the practical implementation and acceptability issues that might emerge. Doing so requires the involvement of the end users of these services, including patients, and sections of the public who are the target group for population based screening. In the present study we sought to explore public attitudes to the potential integration of personal genomic profiling within existing population screening programs; and to explore the evolution of these attitudes as part of a deliberative process.
methodsWe conducted a mixed methods study presented in the format of a deliberative workshop. Participants were drawn from communities in Ottawa, Ontario (ON) and St John's, Newfoundland and Labrador (NL), Canada. Individuals were approached to take part in a workshop on the incorporation of genomic risk profiling for either colorectal cancer screening (CRC), or newborn screening for type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM).
resultsA total of N = 148 (N = 65 ON, N = 83 NL) participants provided data for analysis. Participants in both groups were supportive of public funding for genomic risk profiling, although participants in the T1DM groups expressed more guarded positive attitudes than participants in the CRC groups. These views were stable throughout the workshop (CRC, p = 0.15, T1DM, p =0.39). Participants were less positive about individual testing, with a significant decrease in support over the course of the workshop (CRC p = 0.02, T1DM, p = 0.003). Common concerns related to access to test results by third parties.
conclusionsThe findings of this study suggest that members of the target populations for potential genomic profiling tests (designed for screening or risk prediction purposes) can engage in meaningful deliberation about their general acceptability and personal utility. Evaluations of whether a test would be personally useful may depend on the experience of the participants in personal health decision making, the purpose of the test, and the availability of interventions to reduce disease risk.
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.