Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32160204›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

Evolving public views on the value of one's DNA and expectations for genomic database governance: Results from a national survey.

Forrest Briscoe, Ifeoma Ajunwa, Allison Gaddis, Jennifer McCormick

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
5.0field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 43 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Racial Differences in Perceptions of Genetic Wellness Programs.American journal of health promotion : AJHP · 2023
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Forrest BriscoeSmeal College of Business, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-7840-7191
Ifeoma AjunwaIndustrial and Labor Relations (ILR) School, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, United States of America.
Allison GaddisSchreyer Honors College, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, United States of America.
Jennifer McCormickDepartment of Humanities, College of Medicine, Penn State Clinical and Translational Science Institute, Penn State University Hershey, Hershey, Pennsylvania, United States of America.
Pennsylvania State University · USCornell University · US

Funding

Penn State Clinical and Translational Science InstituteUL1TR002014 · NCATS · PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV HERSHEY MED CTR · PI KRASCHNEWSKI, JENNIFER L. · 2016 to 2025
$33.7M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002014
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We report results from a large survey of public attitudes regarding genomic database governance. Prior surveys focused on the context of academic-sponsored biobanks, framing data provision as altruistic donation; our survey is designed to reflect four growing trends: genomic databases are found across many sectors; they are used for more than academic biomedical research; their value is reflected in corporate transactions; and additional related privacy risks are coming to light. To examine how attitudes may evolve in response to these trends, we provided survey respondents with information from mainstream media coverage of them. We then found only 11.7% of respondents willing to altruistically donate their data, versus 50.6% willing to provide data if financially compensated, and 37.8% unwilling to provide data regardless of compensation. Because providing one's genomic data is sometimes bundled with receipt of a personalized genomic report, we also asked respondents what price they would be willing to pay for a personalized report. Subtracting that response value from one's expected compensation for providing data (if any) yields a net expected payment. For the altruistic donors, median net expected payment was -$75 (i.e. they expected to pay $75 for the bundle). For respondents wanting compensation for their data, however, median net expected payment was +$95 (i.e. they expected to receive $95). When asked about different genomic database governance policies, most respondents preferred options that allowed them more control over their data. In particular, they favored policies restricting data sharing or reuse unless permission is specifically granted by the individual. Policy preferences were also relatively consistent regardless of the sector in which the genomic database was located. Together these findings offer a forward-looking window on individual preferences that can be useful for institutions of all types as they develop governance approaches in this area of large-scale data sharing.

Indexed as

Databases, Nucleic AcidInformation DisseminationPublic OpinionAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAttitudeCompensation and RedressFemaleHumansInformation Storage and RetrievalMaleMiddle AgedPrivacySurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID32160204
PMCPMC7065739
OpenAlexW3011172817

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.