Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30185949›Full record

Trial reportJournal of human genetics2018

A comparison of genome cohort participants' genetic knowledge and preferences to receive genetic results before and after a genetics workshop.

Kayono Yamamoto, Atsushi Shimizu, Fumie Aizawa, Hiroshi Kawame, Tomoharu Tokutomi, Akimune Fukushima

Abstract readClinical TrialComparative Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of human genetics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 2 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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Swiss Cohort & Biobank - The White Paper.Public health reviews · 2022
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Genetic feedback for psychiatric conditions: Where are we now and where are we going.American journal of medical genetics. Part B, Neuropsychiatric genetics : the official publication of the International Society of Psychiatric Genetics · 2020
    Review
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

6 authors.

Kayono YamamotoDivision of Innovation and Education, Iwate Tohoku Medical Megabank Organization, Disaster Reconstruction Center, Iwate Medical University, Iwate, Japan.
Atsushi ShimizuDivision of Biomedical Information Analysis, Iwate Tohoku Medical Megabank Organization, Disaster Reconstruction Center, Iwate Medical University, Iwate, Japan.
Fumie AizawaCenter for Liberal Arts and Sciences, Iwate Medical University, Iwate, Japan.
Hiroshi KawameDepartment of Education and Training, Tohoku Medical Megabank Organization, Tohoku University, Sendai, Japan.
Tomoharu TokutomiDivision of Innovation and Education, Iwate Tohoku Medical Megabank Organization, Disaster Reconstruction Center, Iwate Medical University, Iwate, Japan.
Akimune FukushimaDivision of Innovation and Education, Iwate Tohoku Medical Megabank Organization, Disaster Reconstruction Center, Iwate Medical University, Iwate, Japan. kyamamot@iwate-med.ac.jp.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Several biobanks have begun returning genetic results to individuals, making the development of public genetic literacy an urgent task for their effective use. No research exists regarding the effects of genetic education on biobank participants, so we conducted genetics workshops with specialists, and surveyed differences in the participants' (n = 112) preferences to receive their own genetic information by disease categories and their genetic knowledge using questionnaires before and after the workshops. Almost 90% of our participants were over 60 years old, which was similar to our previous preference research. The preference to receive five of the six categories of genetic information (lifestyle diseases, pharmacogenetics, adult-onset non-clinically actionable diseases, non-clinically actionable multifactorial diseases, and all genetic information) was slightly but significantly decreased after the genetics workshop. More participants preferred to receive genetic results regarding lifestyle diseases, pharmacogenetics, and adult-onset clinically actionable diseases after the workshop, while less participants preferred to receive information regarding adult-onset non-clinically actionable diseases, non-clinically actionable multifactorial diseases, and all genetic information. Total genetic knowledge scores significantly increased after the workshop (before: 11.89, after: 13.30, p < 0.001). Our findings suggest that genetics workshops are useful to improve the genetic literacy of genome cohort participants.

Indexed as

Genetic Diseases, InbornKnowledgePatient Education as TopicSurveys and QuestionnairesAdultAgedEducationFemaleHuman GeneticsHumansMaleMiddle Aged

Identifiers

PMID30185949
PMCPMC8075932

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.