Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29924808›Full record

ArticlePloS one2018

Genomic information and a person's right not to know: A closer look at variations in hypothetical informational preferences in a German sample.

Laura Flatau, Markus Reitt, Gunnar Duttge, Christian Lenk, Barbara Zoll, Wolfgang Poser, Alexandra Weber, Urs Heilbronner, Marcella Rietschel, Jana Strohmaier and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

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

  1. Prevalence and predictors of medical information avoidance: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Annals of behavioral medicine : a publication of the Society of Behavioral Medicine · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Attitudes toward the right to autonomous decision-making in psychiatric genetic testing: Controversial and context-dependent.American journal of medical genetics. Part B, Neuropsychiatric genetics : the official publication of the International Society of Psychiatric Genetics · 2019
    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

13 authors.

Laura FlatauInstitute of Psychiatric Phenomics and Genomics, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-3788-9128
Markus ReittInstitute of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany.
Gunnar DuttgeCenter for Medical Law, University of Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany.
Christian LenkInstitute for History, Theory and Ethics of Medicine, Ulm University, Ulm, Germany.
Barbara ZollInstitute for Human Genetics, University of Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany.
Wolfgang PoserInstitute of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany.
Alexandra WeberCenter for Medical Law, University of Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany.
Urs HeilbronnerInstitute of Psychiatric Phenomics and Genomics, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich, Germany.
Marcella RietschelCentral Institute for Mental Health, Mannheim, Germany.
Jana StrohmaierCentral Institute for Mental Health, Mannheim, Germany.
Rebekka KesbergInstitute for Psychology and Education, Ulm University, Ulm, Germany.
Jonas NagelDepartment of Psychology, University of Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany.
Thomas G SchulzeInstitute of Psychiatric Phenomics and Genomics, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In clinical practice and in research, there is an ongoing debate on how to return incidental and secondary findings of genetic tests to patients and research participants. Previous investigations have found that most of the people most of the time are in favor of full disclosure of results. Yet, the option to reject disclosure, based on the so-called right not to know, can be valuable especially for some vulnerable subgroups of recipients. In the present study we investigated variations in informational preferences in the context of genetic testing in a large and diverse German sample. This survey examined health care professionals, patients, participants of genetic counseling sessions and members of the general population (N = 518). Survey participants were assessed regarding their openness to learning about findings under various hypothetical scenarios, as well as their attitudes about the doctor-patient-relationship in a disclosure situation and about informational transfer to third parties. While the majority of participants wanted to learn about their findings, the extent of support of disclosure varied with features of the hypothetical diagnostic scenarios (e.g., controllability of disease; abstract vs. concrete scenario description) and demographic characteristics of the subjects. For example, subjects with higher levels of education were more selective with regards to the kind of information they want to receive than those with lower levels of education. We discuss implications of these findings for the debate about the right not to know and for the clinical practice of informed consent procedures.

Indexed as

Genome, HumanAdolescentAdultAgedDisclosureFemaleGenetic CounselingGenetic PrivacyGenetic TestingGermanyHumansInformed ConsentMaleMiddle Aged

Identifiers

PMID29924808
PMCPMC6010220

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.