Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32945059›Full record

ArticleJournal of genetic counseling2021

Comprehension and personal value of negative non-diagnostic genetic panel testing.

Christin Hoell, Sharon Aufox, Nora Nashawaty, Melanie F Myers, Maureen E Smith

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Elective genomic sequencing for adults in research, clinical and commercial contexts.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Persuasive Appeals in Genetic Biobank Recruitment Campaigns: Social and Ethical Implications.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2023
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Christin HoellCenter for Genetic Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA.
Sharon AufoxCenter for Genetic Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA.
Nora NashawatyPark Nicollet Frauenshuh Cancer Center, St. Louis Park, MN, USA.
Melanie F MyersDivision of Human Genetics, Cincinnati Children's Hospital, Cincinnati, OH, USA.
Maureen E SmithCenter for Genetic Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9480-1092
Northwestern University · USCincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center · USFrauenshuh Cancer Center · US

Funding

Northwestern Genomic Risk Assessment and Management ProgramU01HG011169 · NHGRI · NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY AT CHICAGO · PI REX L CHISHOLM, Elizabeth M McNally · 2020 to 2026
$7.4M
A Personalized Genomic Medicine Pilot Program Using the NJgene eMERGE ExperienceU01HG006388 · NHGRI · NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY AT CHICAGO · PI CHISHOLM, REX L, SMITH, MAUREEN E · 2011 to 2014
$4.1M
Genomic Medicine at Northwestern: Discovery and ImplementationU01HG008673 · NHGRI · NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY AT CHICAGO · PI CHISHOLM, REX L, SMITH, MAUREEN E · 2015 to 2019
$4.1M
NHGRI NIH HHS U01 HG006388NHGRI NIH HHS U01 HG008673NHGRI NIH HHS U01HG008673NHGRI NIH HHS U01 HG011169
6 · The paper itself

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

ComprehensionGenetic TestingGenomicsHumansInformed Consentgenetic testinghealth behaviornegative resultsperceived utilitypopulation screeningunderstanding

Identifiers

PMID32945059
PMCPMC8477451
OpenAlexW3087033950

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.