ArticleJournal of genetic counseling2020
Public perception of predictive cancer genetic testing and research in Oregon.
Article in Journal of genetic counseling, 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, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Patient Perspectives and Demographic Factors Influencing Non-Participation in a Large Genomics Study.Mayo Clinic proceedings. Innovations, quality & outcomes · 2026Article
- Psychosocial predictors of hereditary cancer genetic testing motivation in untested individuals.Journal of genetic counseling · 2025Article
- Improving genetics equity: identifying women eligible for genetic care services using mammography clinics in underserved areas as screening hubs.The oncologist · 2025Article
- Exploring Literacy and Knowledge Gaps and Disparities in Genetics and Oncogenomics Among Cancer Patients and the General Population: A Scoping Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Engaging communities: A scoping literature review of community-based participatory research in genetics service delivery settings.Journal of community genetics · 2024Article
- Novel recruitment approaches and operational results for a statewide population Cohort for cancer research: The Healthy Oregon Project.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2024Article
- The Together for Health - Virginia Research Program: A Multi-Modal Approach for Population Health Assessment.Preventive oncology & epidemiology · 2024Article
- Are beliefs about the importance of genetics for cancer prevention and early detection associated with high risk cancer genetic testing in the U.S. Population?Preventive medicine reports · 2022Article
- Effect of Superstitious Beliefs and Risk Intuitions on Genetic Test Decisions.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2022Article
- Public perceptions of predictive testing for rheumatoid arthritis compared to breast cancer and early-onset Alzheimer's disease: a qualitative study.BMC rheumatology · 2022Article
- Public Interest in Population Genetic Screening for Cancer Risk.Frontiers in genetics · 2022Article
- Behavioral and Psychological Outcomes Associated with Skin Cancer Genetic Testing in Albuquerque Primary Care.Cancers · 2021Article
- Healthcare Predictors of Information Dissemination About Genetic Risks.Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer CenterArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The potential for using widespread genetic testing to inform health care has become a viable option, particularly for heritable cancers. Yet, little is known about how to effectively communicate the benefits and risks of both personal genetic testing and participation in biorepositories that aid scientific advancements. Nationwide efforts are engaging communities in large genetic studies to better estimate the population-wide prevalence of heritable cancers but have been met with hesitance or declination to participate in some communities. To successfully engage an Oregon population in longitudinal research that includes predictive genetic testing for pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants associated with an increased risk for cancer, researchers conducted 35 focus groups (two of which were held in Spanish) in 24 of Oregon's 36 counties to better understand knowledge and attitudes related to genetic testing and willingness to participate in longitudinal genetic research. A total of 203 adults (mean = 45.6 years; range 18-88), representing a range of education levels and prior knowledge of genetic research, participated in the focus groups. The majority (85%) of participants reported personal or family diagnoses of cancer (e.g., self, family, friends). A majority (87%) also reported a strong interest in cancer genetic testing and receiving genetic information about themselves. Nearly all focus groups (94%, 33 of 35 sites) included participant discussion citing their families (e.g., children, close relatives, and extended family members) as key motivators for participation in genetic research. For example, participants reported interest in increasing personal knowledge about their own and their families' cancer risks in order to respond proactively, if a pathogenic variant was found. While most focus groups (94%, 33 of 35 sites) included participant discussion describing barriers to predictive genetic, testing such as concerns about outcomes, the desire to learn about health risks in oneself mitigated or outweighed those fears for many participants. Other commonly reported concerns were related to potential mistrust of insurance companies, researchers, or institutions, or lack of knowledge about genetics, genetic testing, or genetic research. Participants, particularly in rural areas, highlighted critical factors for research recruitment, such as trust, personal interaction, public education about genetic research, and clear communication about study goals and processes. Our statewide findings reflect that public interest in predictive cancer genetic testing and cancer genetic research can surpass lack of knowledge of the complex topics, particularly when benefits for self and family are emphasized and when study considerations are well articulated.
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.