ArticleEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2019
Australians' views and experience of personal genomic testing: survey findings from the Genioz study.
Article in European journal of human genetics : EJHG, 2019. 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.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Sharing behavior and health care utilization following direct-to-consumer genetic testing: a systematic review.Open research Europe · 2025Pooled it
- Experiences accessing and receiving tumour genetic profiling in Victoria: a consumer-led cross-sectional survey study.BMC cancer · 2026Article
- Sociodemographic and health factors associated with genetic testing in Australia: insights from a cohort-based study of 45,061 participants.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2025Article
- How does the genomic naive public perceive whole genomic testing for health purposes? A scoping review.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2023Article
- Australian parental perceptions of genomic newborn screening for non-communicable diseases.Frontiers in genetics · 2023Article
- Co-designing genomics research with a large group of donor-conceived siblings.Research involvement and engagement · 2021Article
- Australian human research ethics committee members' confidence in reviewing genomic research applications.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2021Article
- 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 · 2021Article
- Involving people affected by a rare condition in shaping future genomic research.Research involvement and engagement · 2021Article
- Sharing genomic data from clinical testing with researchers: public survey of expectations of clinical genomic data management in Queensland, Australia.BMC medical ethics · 2020Article
- Queensland Consumers' Awareness and Understanding of Clinical Genetics Services.Frontiers in genetics · 2020Article
- From Expectations to Experiences: Consumer Autonomy and Choice in Personal Genomic Testing.AJOB empirical bioethicsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Personal genomic tests (PGTs) for multiple purposes are marketed to ostensibly healthy people in Australia. These tests are generally marketed and purchased online commercially or can be ordered through a health professional. There has been minimal engagement with Australians about their interest in and experience with ordering a PGT. As part of a multistage, interdisciplinary project, an online survey (Stage 2 of the Genioz study) was available from May 2016 to May 2017. In total, 3253 respondents attempted the survey, with 2395 completed Australian responses from people with and without experience of having a PGT: 72% were female; 59% of the whole sample were undertaking/or had a university education; and, overall, age ranged from 18-over 80. A total of 571 respondents reported having had a genetic test, 373 of these classifiable as a PGT. A bivariate analysis suggests people who have undergone PGT in our sample were: women aged 25 and over; or in a high socioeconomic group, or have a personal or family diagnosis of a genetic condition (P ≤ 0.03). After a multivariate analysis, socioeconomic status and a genetic condition in the family were not of significance. The most common types of PGT reported were for carrier status and ancestry. Findings suggest greater awareness of, and an increasing demand for non-health related PGT in Australia. To support both consumers and health care professionals with understanding PGT results, there is a need for appropriate support and resources.
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.