ArticleBMC health services research2019
Are providers prepared for genomic medicine: interpretation of Direct-to-Consumer genetic testing (DTC-GT) results and genetic self-efficacy by medical professionals.
Article in BMC health services research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 3 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
- General practitioners' (GPs) experience, attitudes and needs on clinical genetic services: a systematic review.Family medicine and community health · 2022Pooled it
- How Has the Rise of Direct-To-Consumer Genetic Testing Impacted Genetic Counselling Practice? A Scoping Review.Clinical genetics · 2026Article
- Interest in Genetic Testing for Hereditary Cancer Risk: Associations with Genetic Familiarity, Self-Efficacy, and Sociodemographics.Public health genomics · 2026Article
- A comparative evaluation of ChatGPT 3.5 and ChatGPT 4 in responses to selected genetics questions.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2024Article
- Article
- Polygenic Scores in the Direct-to-Consumer Setting: Challenges and Opportunities for a New Era in Consumer Genetic Testing.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Review
- Development of customized inner beauty products and customized cosmetics apps according to the use of NRF2 through DTC genetic testing after the COVID-19 pandemic.Journal of cosmetic dermatology · 2022Review
- Targeted BRCA1/2 population screening among Ashkenazi Jewish individuals using a web-enabled medical model: An observational cohort study.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2022Observational
- Genetic testing users in Italy and Germany: Health orientation, health-related habits, and psychological profile.Molecular genetics & genomic medicine · 2022Article
- Pitfalls and challenges in genetic test interpretation: An exploration of genetic professionals experience with interpretation of results.Clinical genetics · 2021Article
- Direct to consumer genetic testing in Denmark-public knowledge, use, and attitudes.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2021Article
- May direct-to-consumer genetic testing have an impact on general practitioners' daily practice? a cross-sectional study of patients' intentions towards this approach.BMC family practice · 2021Article
- Legal Challenges in Precision Medicine: What Duties Arising From Genetic and Genomic Testing Does a Physician Owe to Patients?Frontiers in medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrecision medicine is set to deliver a rich new data set of genomic information. However, the number of certified specialists in the United States is small, with only 4244 genetic counselors and 1302 clinical geneticists. We conducted a national survey of 264 medical professionals to evaluate how they interpret genetic test results, determine their confidence and self-efficacy of interpreting genetic test results with patients, and capture their opinions and experiences with direct-to-consumer genetic tests (DTC-GT).
methodsParticipants were grouped into two categories, genetic specialists (genetic counselors and clinical geneticists) and medical providers (primary care, internists, physicians assistants, advanced nurse practitioners, etc.). The survey (full instrument can be found in the Additional file 1) presented three genetic test report scenarios for interpretation: a genetic risk for diabetes, genomic sequencing for symptoms report implicating a potential HMN7B: distal hereditary motor neuropathy VIIB diagnosis, and a statin-induced myopathy risk. Participants were also asked about their opinions on DTC-GT results and rank their own perceived level of preparedness to review genetic test results with patients.
resultsThe rates of correctly interpreting results were relatively high (74.4% for the providers compared to the specialist's 83.4%) and age, prior genetic test consultation experience, and level of trust assigned to the reports were associated with higher correct interpretation rates. The self-selected efficacy and the level of preparedness to consult on a patient's genetic results were higher for the specialists than the provider group.
conclusionSpecialists remain the best group to assist patients with DTC-GT, however, primary care providers may still provide accurate interpretation of test results when specialists are unavailable.
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.