Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29706641›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2018

Australians' views on personal genomic testing: focus group findings from the Genioz study.

Sylvia A Metcalfe, Chriselle Hickerton, Jacqueline Savard, Bronwyn Terrill, Erin Turbitt, Clara Gaff, Kathleen Gray, Anna Middleton, Brenda Wilson, Ainsley J Newson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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 · 2021
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. 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

10 authors.

Sylvia A MetcalfeDepartment of Paediatrics, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. sylvia.metcalfe@mcri.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5714-5716
Chriselle HickertonGenetics Education and Health Research, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia.
Jacqueline SavardSydney Health Ethics, Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Bronwyn TerrillGarvan Institute of Medical Research, Sydney, Australia.
Erin TurbittDepartment of Paediatrics, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6650-9702
Clara GaffDepartment of Paediatrics, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Kathleen GrayHealth and Biomedical Informatics Centre, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Anna MiddletonSociety and Ethics Research, Connecting Science, Wellcome Genome Campus, Cambridge, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3103-8098
Brenda WilsonSchool of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.
Ainsley J NewsonSydney Health Ethics, Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3460-772X

Funding

Wellcome Trust 206194
6 · The paper itself

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

AttitudeGenetic TestingAdolescentAdultAustraliaDirect-To-Consumer Screening and TestingFemaleFocus GroupsHumansMaleMiddle Aged

Identifiers

PMID29706641
PMCPMC6057916

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.