Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29852491›Full record

ArticlePublic health genomics2017

Assessing Genetic Literacy Awareness and Knowledge Gaps in the US Population: Results from the Health Information National Trends Survey.

Melinda Krakow, Chelsea L Ratcliff, Bradford W Hesse, Alexandra J Greenberg-Worisek

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 63 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
63citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
5.1field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

63 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 88 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Genetic counseling and testing for Asian Americans: a systematic review.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2021
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

3 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Melinda KrakowHealth Communication and Informatics Research Branch, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Chelsea L RatcliffDepartment of Communication, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.
Bradford W HesseHealth Communication and Informatics Research Branch, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Alexandra J Greenberg-WorisekMayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
National Cancer Institute · USMayo Clinic · USUniversity of Utah · US

Funding

Intramural NIH HHS Z99 CA999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND/

aimsPublic understanding of the role of genetics in disease risk is key to appropriate disease prevention and detection. This study assessed the current extent of awareness and use of genetic testing in the US population. Additionally, the study identified characteristics of subgroups more likely to be at risk for low genetic literacy.

methodsThe study used data from the National Cancer Institute's 2017 Health Information National Trends Survey, including measures of genetic testing awareness, genetic testing applications and genetic testing usage. Multivariable logistic regression models estimated associations between sociodemographics, genetic testing awareness, and genetic testing use.

resultsFifty-seven percent of respondents were aware of genetic tests. Testing awareness differed by age, household income, and race/ethnicity. Most participants had heard of using tests to determine personal disease risk (82.58%) or inherited disease risk in children (81.41%), but less were familiar with determining treatment (38.29%) or drug efficacy (40.76%). Among those with genetic testing awareness, actual testing uptake was low.

conclusionsA large portion of the general public lacks genetic testing awareness and may benefit from educational campaigns. As precision medicine expands, increasing public awareness about genetic testing applications for disease prevention and treatment will be important to support population health.

Indexed as

AwarenessGenetic educationGenetic literacyGenetic testingHealth communicationHealth informationKnowledgeKnowledge gapPopulation survey

Identifiers

PMID29852491
PMCPMC6095736
OpenAlexW2805438609

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.