ArticleEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2018
Australians' views on personal genomic testing: focus group findings from the Genioz study.
Article in European journal of human genetics : EJHG, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 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
- Exploring Literacy and Knowledge Gaps and Disparities in Genetics and Oncogenomics Among Cancer Patients and the General Population: A Scoping Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Article
- Public attitudes towards genomic data sharing: results from a provincial online survey in Canada.BMC medical ethics · 2023Article
- How does the genomic naive public perceive whole genomic testing for health purposes? A scoping review.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2023Article
- Australian parental perceptions of genomic newborn screening for non-communicable diseases.Frontiers in genetics · 2023Article
- Knowledge, awareness, and perception on genetic testing for primary immunodeficiency disease among parents in Malaysia: a qualitative study.Frontiers in immunology · 2023Article
- The expectations and realities of nutrigenomic testing in australia: A qualitative study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2021Article
- Australians' views and experience of personal genomic testing: survey findings from the Genioz study.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2019Article
- Healthcare System Priorities for Successful Integration of Genomics: An Australian Focus.Frontiers in public health · 2019Review
- Genomic Testing for Human Health and Disease Across the Life Cycle: Applications and Ethical, Legal, and Social Challenges.Frontiers in public health · 2019Review
- From Expectations to Experiences: Consumer Autonomy and Choice in Personal Genomic Testing.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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Personal genomic testing provides healthy individuals with access to information about their genetic makeup for purposes including ancestry, paternity, sporting ability and health. Such tests are available commercially and globally, with accessibility expected to continue to grow, including in Australia; yet little is known of the views/expectations of Australians. Focus groups were conducted within a multi-stage, cross-disciplinary project (Genioz) to explore this. In mid-2015, 56 members of the public participated in seven focus groups, allocated into three age groups: 18-24, 25-49, and ≥50 years. Three researchers coded transcripts independently and generated themes. Awareness of personal genomic testing was low, but most could deduce what "personal genomics" might entail. Very few had heard of the term "direct-to-consumer" testing, which has implications for organisations developing information to support individuals in their decision-making. Participants' understanding of genetics was varied and drawn from several sources. There were diverse perceptions of the relative influence of genetics and environment on health, mental health, behavior, talent, or personality. Views about having a personal genomic test were mixed, with greater interest in health-related tests if they believed there was a reason for doing so. However, many expressed scepticisms about the types of tests available, and how the information might be used; concerns were also raised about privacy and the potential for discrimination. These exploratory findings inform subsequent stages of the Genioz study, thereby contributing to strategies of supporting Australians to understand and make meaningful and well-considered decisions about the benefits, harms, and implications of personal genomic tests.
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.