ArticleJournal of personalized medicine2019
Physician Experience with Direct-To-Consumer Genetic Testing in Kaiser Permanente.
Article in Journal of personalized medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Sharing behavior and health care utilization following direct-to-consumer genetic testing: a systematic review.Open research Europe · 2025Pooled it
- Direct-to-consumer genetic testing: an updated systematic review of healthcare professionals' knowledge and views, and ethical and legal concerns.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2022Pooled it
- Compassion and equity-focused clinical genomics training for health professional learners.Journal of genetic counseling · 2025Article
- Curating Genetic Associations With Rheumatologic Autoimmune Diseases to Improve Patient Outcomes.Arthritis & rheumatology (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2024Article
- Should Commercial Diagnostic Testing Be Stimulated or Discouraged? Analyzing Willingness-to-Pay and Market Externalities of Three Commercial Diagnostic Tests in The Netherlands.Applied health economics and health policy · 2024Article
- Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing: A Comprehensive Review.Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science · 2023Review
- Direct to consumer genetic testing in Denmark-public knowledge, use, and attitudes.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2021Article
- Identifying rare, medically relevant variation via population-based genomic screening in Alabama: opportunities and pitfalls.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2021Article
- The Need for Education and Clinical Best Practice Guidelines in the Era of Direct-to-Consumer Genomic Testing.JMIR medical education · 2020Article
- Primary Care Physician Experiences with Integrated Population-Scale Genetic Testing: A Mixed-Methods Assessment.Journal of personalized medicine · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Health systems and physicians nationwide aspire to consistently and reliably apply genetic and genomic information to guide disease prevention, management, and treatment. However, clinical information, including genetics/genomics data from within and outside of the care delivery system, is expanding rapidly. Between November 2017 and April 2018, we surveyed 1502 Permanente Medical Group primary care and specialist physicians to assess the degree to which direct-to-consumer genetic test results were being presented to physicians and identify genetics educational needs among physicians (response rate 15%). Adjusted logistic regression (according to respondent characteristics) was used to calculate adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) comparing responses within groups. Results showed 35% and 12% of respondents reported receiving at least one direct-to-consumer health risk genetic result (DTC-health risk) or direct-to-consumer pharmacogenomic test result (DTC-PGx), respectively, from a patient in the past year. Of those receiving at least one test result, 40% (DTC-health risk) and 39% (DTC-PGx) of physicians reported 1+ referral(s); 78% (DTC-health risk) and 42% (DTC-PGx) of referrals were to clinical genetics. In total, 85% of physicians would spend ≥2 h/year on genetics/genomics education.
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.