Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28306397›Full record

ArticleGenetic testing and molecular biomarkers2017

Public Views on Genetics and Genetic Testing: A Survey of the General Public in Belgium.

Davit Chokoshvili, Carmen Belmans, Roxanne Poncelet, Sofie Sanders, Deborah Vaes, Danya Vears, Sandra Janssens, Isabelle Huys, Pascal Borry

Open access · greenAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Genetic testing and molecular biomarkers, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 38 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
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

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Davit Chokoshvili1 Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Centre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium .
Carmen Belmans1 Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Centre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium .
Roxanne Poncelet1 Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Centre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium .
Sofie Sanders1 Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Centre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium .
Deborah Vaes1 Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Centre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium .
Danya Vears1 Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Centre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium .
Sandra Janssens2 Centre for Medical Genetics Ghent, University Hospital Ghent , Ghent, Belgium .
Isabelle Huys1 Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Centre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium .
Pascal Borry1 Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Centre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium .
KU Leuven · BEGhent University Hospital · BE

Funding

Disclosing Genomic Incidental Findings in a Cancer Biobank: An ELSI ExperimentR01CA154517 · NCI · MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER · PI KOENIG, BARBARA A., PETERSEN, GLORIA M. · 2011 to 2015
$2.7M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA154517
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsTo explore the views of the Belgian public on various topics surrounding genetics and genetic testing (GT). MATERIALS AND

methodsA written questionnaire was administered to visitors of the annual cartoon festival in Knokke-Heist, Belgium, during the summer of 2014. The main theme of the festival was challenges and progress in human genetics and it was attended by more than 100,000 visitors.

resultsThe survey was completed by 1182 respondents, resulting in a demographically diverse sample with a mean age of 48.5 years. Our respondents expressed moderate interest in predictive GT, with 39.1% willing to learn about their predisposition to diseases through GT and 49.5% indicating interest in getting tested exclusively for treatable/preventable diseases. We observed higher interest in GT for reproductive purposes, such as preconception screening for recessive disorders (53.8%) and prenatal GT (60.7%). A substantial minority (46.4%) of the respondents were worried that GT could further stigmatize people with disabilities, while 39.7% believed that carrier screening for recessive diseases would lead to an inferior image of people affected by them.

conclusionPaying due attention to the attitudes, beliefs, and concerns of the general public is important to ensure ethically sound and socially acceptable implementation of new genetic technologies.

Indexed as

Genetic Predisposition to DiseaseGenetic TestingSurveys and QuestionnairesAdolescentAdultBelgiumFemaleHumansMaleMiddle Agedattitudesgenetic testingquestionnairesurvey

Identifiers

PMID28306397
PMCPMC5488261
OpenAlexW2595101902

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.