ArticleJournal of genetic counseling2021
Comprehension and personal value of negative non-diagnostic genetic panel testing.
Article in Journal of genetic counseling, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Demographic Characteristics Associated With Perceptions of Personal Utility in Genetic and Genomic Testing: A Systematic Review.JAMA network open · 2023Pooled it
- Elective genomic sequencing for adults in research, clinical and commercial contexts.BMC medical genomics · 2026Article
- Patients offered genomic testing for rare disease and cancer: a real-world evaluation of impact and processes of care.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2026Article
- Elective genomic sequencing for adults in research, clinical and commercial contexts.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- Adolescents' and young adults' reactions to and perceived utility of carrier screening results in the context of a genomic research study.Journal of genetic counseling · 2025Article
- Negative results from DNA-based population screening for adult-onset diseases: the recipients' experience.Journal of community genetics · 2024Article
- Participant-reported personal utility of genetic testing for Parkinson's disease and interest in clinical trial participation.NPJ Parkinson's disease · 2024Article
- Evaluation of mailed results versus telephone disclosure of normal cancer genetic test results in a low-risk underserved population.Translational behavioral medicine · 2024Article
- Delivering Genetic Test Results for Parkinson Disease: A Qualitative Approach to Provider Experiences in the PD GENEration Study.Neurology. Clinical practice · 2024Article
- Risk perception and intended behavior change after uninformative genetic results for adult-onset hereditary conditions in unselected patients.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2024Article
- Persuasive Appeals in Genetic Biobank Recruitment Campaigns: Social and Ethical Implications.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2023Article
- Studying the impact of translational genomic research: Lessons from eMERGE.American journal of human genetics · 2023Review
- Tools for communicating risk for Parkinson's disease.NPJ Parkinson's disease · 2022Article
- Experiences of adolescents and their parents after receiving adolescents' genomic screening results.Journal of genetic counseling · 2022Article
- Comprehension of skin cancer genetic risk feedback in primary care patients.Journal of community genetics · 2022Article
- Characteristics and experiences of patients from a community-based and consumer-directed hereditary cancer population screening initiative.HGG advances · 2022Article
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Increasing interest and pursuit of genetic testing by the general public have raised concerns about their understanding and use of their results. While most research has focused on individuals receiving positive genetic test results, there have been limited investigations assessing the understanding and utility of receiving negative genetic test results. Individuals who receive a negative (or uninformative) genetic test result may not appreciate the limitations of genetic testing and their residual disease risk. The goals of this study were to explore participant understanding and perceived utility of negative non-diagnostic genetic test results. We conducted semi-structured interviews with participants who received negative non-diagnostic genetic test results from the electronic Medical Records and Genomics Network (eMERGE) testing panel at Northwestern University. A total of 17 participants were interviewed. While many expressed a lack of understanding of genetics and the relationship between genes, disease, and environment, most acknowledged that they had residual risk to develop a health problem and should continue with their routine health management. Additionally, participants expressed that their negative results had personal value, by providing them peace of mind and learning additional knowledge about themselves and their health. Participants did not anticipate that results would have an impact on their lifestyle, but felt the results were useful for sharing with their physician and could inform future genetic testing decisions. While mostly positive, some participants were disappointed not to learn more individualized results. While a more thorough exploration is necessary, findings in this study can aid efforts to improve or innovate informed consent for genomic testing, as well as scalable modes of result return that foster comprehension following negative genetic testing.
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.