ArticleEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2020
Genome sequencing in healthcare: understanding the UK general public's views and implications for clinical practice.
Article in European journal of human genetics : EJHG, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- The relationship between uncertainty and trust in genomic medicine and research: A literature review and thematic analysis.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2026Review
- A population-representative survey on attitudes toward genomic newborn screening in Germany.Genetics in medicine open · 2026Article
- Psychological and behavioural considerations for integrating polygenic risk scores for disease into clinical practice.Nature human behaviour · 2025Review
- Discussion of off-target and tentative genomic findings may sometimes be necessary to allow evaluation of their clinical significance.Journal of medical ethics · 2024Article
- Perception of genomic newborn screening among peripartum mothers.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2024Article
- Ethical Considerations in Research with Genomic Data.The New bioethics : a multidisciplinary journal of biotechnology and the body · 2023Article
- Realistic expectations are key to realising the benefits of polygenic scores.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2023Article
- Public engagement with genomics.Wellcome open research · 2023Review
- How does the genomic naive public perceive whole genomic testing for health purposes? A scoping review.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2023Article
- Do genomic passports leave us more vulnerable or less vulnerable? Perspectives from an online citizen engagement.Humanities & social sciences communications · 2023Article
- Public perceptions and attitudes of the national project of bio-big data: A nationwide survey in the Republic of Korea.Frontiers in genetics · 2023Article
- "If relatives inherited the gene, they should inherit the data." Bringing the family into the room where bioethics happens.New genetics and society · 2022Article
- Direct-to-consumer genetic testing.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2019Article
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
Technological advances have seen the offer of genome sequencing becoming part of mainstream medical practice. Research has elicited patient and health professional views on the ethical issues genome sequencing raises, however, we know little about the general public's views. These views offer an insight into people's faith in such technologies, informing discussion regarding the approach to consent in clinic. We aimed to garner public views regarding genome sequencing, incidental findings (IFs), and sharing genetic information with relatives. Participants (n = 1954) from the British general public completed a survey, distributed via email. Overall, the public had a positive view of genomic sequencing, choosing 'informative' as the most popular word (52%) and 'family legacy' as the most popular analogy (33%) representing genomic sequencing for them. Fifty-three percent agree that their relative had the right to be told about genetic information relevant to them. Fifty-four percent would expect to be told about IFs whether they had asked for them or not. Clinical practice needs to acknowledge these perspectives and expectations in order to facilitate meaningful discussion during the consent process for genomic tests. We suggest that: (a) optimistic perspectives on the usefulness of genomic tests need to be tempered by discussion in clinic about the likelihood that genomic results might be uninformative, uncertain or unexpected; (b) discussions regarding the familial nature of results are needed before testing: the majority of patients will welcome this and any concerns can be explored further; and (c) a wider discussion is required regarding the consent approach for genomic testing.
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.