SynthesisPloS one2018
A systematic literature review of individuals' perspectives on privacy and genetic information in the United States.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 69 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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
69 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- A systematic literature review of the 'commercialisation effect' on public attitudes towards biobank and genomic data repositories.Public understanding of science (Bristol, England) · 2024Pooled it
- Latinx attitudes, barriers, and experiences with genetic counseling and testing: A systematic review.Journal of genetic counseling · 2023Pooled it
- A systematic literature review of Native American and Pacific Islanders' perspectives on health data privacy in the United States.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2020Pooled it
- Strategies to Assess Risk for Hereditary Cancer in Primary Care Clinics: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2025Trial
- Video education about genetic privacy and patient perspectives about sharing prenatal genetic data: a randomized trial.American journal of obstetrics and gynecology · 2022Trial
- To Test or Not to Test: A Real-World Study of Employee Views and Decision-Making for Genetic Testing in the Workplace.Molecular genetics & genomic medicine · 2026Article
- Genetic Basis of Tobacco Use Disorder.Genes · 2026Review
- Factors influencing public willingness to participate in population-based hereditary cancer genetic testing: a qualitative study of public preferences.Familial cancer · 2026Article
- Views and experiences regarding workplace genetic testing: findings from a national survey of U.S. employees.Journal of community genetics · 2026Article
- Hope Tempered by Caution: Public Beliefs in the USA about the Benefits and Drawbacks of Using Epigenetic Technologies in Clinical Care.Public health genomics · 2026Article
- Genetic exceptionalism and genomic contextualism among Asian Americans: a qualitative study.Journal of community genetics · 2025Article
- A Social Media Campaign and Web-Based Survey About Prostate Cancer Genetics: Mixed Methods Study.JMIR cancer · 2025Article
- Development and psychometric evaluation of a new genetic attitudes questionnaire in two national samples of United States residents.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Patient and physician preferences for cancer panel testing in Japan: a best-worst scaling study.BMJ open · 2025Observational
- Article
- A decade of research on genetic privacy: the findings of the GetPreCiSe Center at Vanderbilt University.Frontiers in genetics · 2025Review
- Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications of Gene-Environment Interaction Research.Genetic epidemiology · 2025Review
- Ethical challenges of conducting and reviewing human genomics research in Malaysia: An exploratory study.Developing world bioethics · 2024Article
- Scoping review of enablers and challenges of implementing pharmacogenomics testing in the primary care settings.BMJ open · 2024Article
- Patient-Centered Equitable and Safe Artificial Intelligence in Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery.Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery · 2024Article
9 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Concerns about genetic privacy affect individuals' willingness to accept genetic testing in clinical care and to participate in genomics research. To learn what is already known about these views, we conducted a systematic review, which ultimately analyzed 53 studies involving the perspectives of 47,974 participants on real or hypothetical privacy issues related to human genetic data. Bibliographic databases included MEDLINE, Web of Knowledge, and Sociological Abstracts. Three investigators independently screened studies against predetermined criteria and assessed risk of bias. The picture of genetic privacy that emerges from this systematic literature review is complex and riddled with gaps. When asked specifically "are you worried about genetic privacy," the general public, patients, and professionals frequently said yes. In many cases, however, that question was posed poorly or only in the most general terms. While many participants expressed concern that genomic and medical information would be revealed to others, respondents frequently seemed to conflate privacy, confidentiality, control, and security. People varied widely in how much control they wanted over the use of data. They were more concerned about use by employers, insurers, and the government than they were about researchers and commercial entities. In addition, people are often willing to give up some privacy to obtain other goods. Importantly, little attention was paid to understanding the factors-sociocultural, relational, and media-that influence people's opinions and decisions. Future investigations should explore in greater depth which concerns about genetic privacy are most salient to people and the social forces and contexts that influence those perceptions. It is also critical to identify the social practices that will make the collection and use of these data more trustworthy for participants as well as to identify the circumstances that lead people to set aside worries and decide to participate in research.
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.