ArticlePublic health genomics2017
Online Education and e-Consent for GeneScreen, a Preventive Genomic Screening Study.
Article in Public health genomics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
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.
- Patient Perspectives and Preferences for Consent in the Digital Health Context: State-of-the-art Literature Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Review
- Education and Consent for Population-Based DNA Screening: A Mixed-Methods Evaluation of the Early Check Newborn Screening Pilot Study.Frontiers in genetics · 2022Article
- GeneLiFT: A novel test to facilitate rapid screening of genetic literacy in a diverse population undergoing genetic testing.Journal of genetic counseling · 2021Article
- Electronic consenting for conducting research remotely: A review of current practice and key recommendations for using e-consenting.International journal of medical informatics · 2020Review
- Demonstrating 'respect for persons' in clinical research: findings from qualitative interviews with diverse genomics research participants.Journal of medical ethics · 2020Article
- Assessing Parent Decisions About Child Participation in a Behavioral Health Intervention Study and Utility of Informed Consent Forms.JAMA network open · 2020Article
- Bridging the Researcher-Participant Gap: A Research Agenda to Build Effective Research Relationships.The American journal of bioethics : AJOB · 2020Article
- Assessing the implications of positive genomic screening results.Personalized medicine · 2020Article
- Returning negative results to individuals in a genomic screening program: lessons learned.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2019Article
- Age and perceived risks and benefits of preventive genomic screening.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2018Article
- Is Real-Time ELSI Realistic?AJOB empirical bioethicsArticle
- Participant Reactions to a Literacy-Focused, Web-Based Informed Consent Approach for a Genomic Implementation Study.AJOB empirical bioethicsArticle
- Development and Validation of a Stakeholder-Driven, Self-Contained Electronic Informed Consent Platform for Trio-Based Genomic Research Studies.AJOB empirical bioethicsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundOnline study recruitment is increasingly popular, but we know little about the decision making that goes into joining studies in this manner. In GeneScreen, a genomic screening study that utilized online education and consent, we investigated participants' perceived ease when deciding to join and their understanding of key study features.
methodsIndividuals were recruited via mailings that directed them to a website where they could learn more about GeneScreen, consent to participate, and complete a survey.
resultsParticipants found it easy to decide to join GeneScreen and had a good understanding of study features. Multiple regression analyses revealed that ease of deciding to join was related to confidence in one's genetic self-efficacy, limited concerns about genetic screening, trust in and lack of frustration using the website, and the ability to spend a limited time on the website. Understanding of study features was related to using the Internet more frequently and attaining more information about GeneScreen conditions.
conclusionsThe ease of deciding to join a genomic screening study and comprehension of its key features should be treated as different phenomena in research and practice. There is a need for a more nuanced understanding of how individuals respond to web-based consent information.
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.