Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28334023›Full record

ArticlePloS one2017

Preferences for the provision of whole genome sequencing services among young adults.

Christopher H Wade, Kailyn R Elliott

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 25% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Christopher H WadeSchool of Nursing & Health Studies, University of Washington Bothell, Bothell, Washington, United States of America.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1036-5145
Kailyn R ElliottSchool of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, United States of America.
University of Washington · USUniversity of Washington Bothell · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesAs whole genome sequencing (WGS) becomes increasingly available, clinicians will be faced with conveying complex information to individuals at different stages in life. The purpose of this study is to characterize the views of young adults toward obtaining WGS, learning different types of genomic information, and having choice about which results are disclosed.

methodsA mixed-methods descriptive study was conducted with a diverse group of 18 and 19-years-olds (N = 145). Participants watched an informational video about WGS and then completed an online survey.

resultsParticipants held a positive attitude toward obtaining WGS and learning about a range of health conditions and traits. Increased interest in learning WGS information was significantly associated with anticipated capacity to handle the emotional consequences if a serious risk was found (β = 0.13, P = .04). Young adults wanted the ability to choose what types of genomic risk information would be returned and expressed decreased willingness to undergo WGS if clinicians made these decisions (t(138) = -7.14, P <.01). Qualitative analysis showed that young adults emphasized procedural factors in WGS decision-making and that perceived health benefits of WGS had a substantial role in testing preferences and anticipated usage of WGS results.

conclusionsClinicians are likely to encounter enthusiasm for obtaining WGS results among young adults and may need to develop strategies for ensuring that this preference is adequately informed.

Indexed as

Attitude to HealthGenetic TestingGenome, HumanAdolescentFemaleGenetic Predisposition to DiseaseHumansMaleSequence Analysis, DNASurveys and QuestionnairesYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID28334023
PMCPMC5363863
OpenAlexW2599696455

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.