Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31527856›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2020

Genome sequencing in healthcare: understanding the UK general public's views and implications for clinical practice.

Lisa M Ballard, Rachel H Horton, Angela Fenwick, Anneke M Lucassen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Perception of genomic newborn screening among peripartum mothers.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2024
    Article
  6. Ethical Considerations in Research with Genomic Data.The New bioethics : a multidisciplinary journal of biotechnology and the body · 2023
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Public engagement with genomics.Wellcome open research · 2023
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Direct-to-consumer genetic testing.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 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

4 authors.

Lisa M BallardClinical Ethics and Law at Southampton (CELS), Centre for Cancer Immunology, University of Southampton, School of Medicine, Southampton, UK. l.ballard@soton.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1017-4322
Rachel H HortonClinical Ethics and Law at Southampton (CELS), Centre for Cancer Immunology, University of Southampton, School of Medicine, Southampton, UK.
Angela FenwickClinical Ethics and Law at Southampton (CELS), Centre for Cancer Immunology, University of Southampton, School of Medicine, Southampton, UK.
Anneke M LucassenClinical Ethics and Law at Southampton (CELS), Centre for Cancer Immunology, University of Southampton, School of Medicine, Southampton, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3324-4338

Funding

Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust (Wellcome) 208053/Z/17/Z
6 · The paper itself

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

Health Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticePublic OpinionAdolescentAdultFemaleGenetic ServicesHumansMaleMiddle AgedSequence Analysis, DNASurveys and QuestionnairesUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID31527856
PMCPMC6974627

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.