ArticleJournal of community genetics2021
Impacts of personal DNA ancestry testing.
Article in Journal of community genetics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Disputing your roots: A multi-platform computational analysis of consumer reactions to genetic ancestry testing.Journal of community genetics · 2026Article
- Exploring experts' views on "Not Parent Expected" discoveries via direct-to-consumer DNA ancestry testing.BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
- Integrating genetic ancestry into clinical care: Accuracy, utility, and stakeholder views.Journal of community genetics · 2026Article
- Comparing owner reported and genetic breed identification reveals high concordance in a large cohort from the Dog Aging Project.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Parents' Perspectives on Secondary Genetic Ancestry Findings in Pediatric Genomic Medicine.Clinical therapeutics · 2023Article
- Review
- Guidelines for genetic ancestry inference created through roundtable discussions.HGG advances · 2023Article
- A Study Evaluating Consumer Motivations, Perceptions, and Responses to Direct-to-Consumer Canine Genetic Test Results.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2022Article
- Family secrets: Experiences and outcomes of participating in direct-to-consumer genetic relative-finder services.American journal of human genetics · 2022Article
- Direct-to-consumer genetic testing: Prospective users' attitudes toward information about ancestry and biological relationships.PloS one · 2021Article
- Interrogating the Value of Return of Results for Diverse Populations: Perspectives from Precision Medicine Researchers.AJOB empirical bioethicsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Consumer uptake of direct-to-consumer (DTC) DNA ancestry testing is accelerating, yet few empirical studies have examined test impacts on recipients despite the DTC ancestry industry being two decades old. Participants in a longitudinal cohort study of response to health-related DTC genomic testing also received personal DNA ancestry testing at no additional cost. Baseline survey data from the primary study were analyzed together with responses to an additional follow-up survey focused on the response to ancestry results. Ancestry results were generated for 3466 individuals. Of those, 1317 accessed their results, and 322 individuals completed an ancestry response survey, in other words, approximately one in ten who received ancestry testing responded to the survey. Self-reported race/ethnicity was predictive of those most likely to view their results. While 46% of survey responders (N = 147) reported their ancestry results as surprising or unexpected, less than 1% (N = 3) were distressed by them. Importantly, however, 21% (N = 67) reported that their results reshaped their personal identity. Most (81%; N = 260) planned to share results with family, and 12% (N = 39) intended to share results with a healthcare provider. Many (61%; N = 196) reported test benefits (e.g., health insights), while 12% (N = 38) reported negative aspects (e.g., lack of utility). Over half (N = 162) reported being more likely to have other genetic tests in the future. DNA ancestry testing affected individuals with respect to personal identity, intentions to share genetic information with family and healthcare providers, and the likelihood to engage with other genetic tests in the future. These findings have implications for medical care and research, specifically, provider readiness to engage with genetic ancestry information.
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.