ArticleBMC medical ethics2022
Who's afraid of genetic tests?: An assessment of Singapore's public attitudes and changes in attitudes after taking a genetic test.
Article in BMC medical ethics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Understanding Barriers and Motivators of Familial Hypercholesterolemia Genetic Testing: Insights From the Singapore Public.Journal of genetic counseling · 2026Article
- Self-Protection Motivation and Its Psychological Construction: A Process Model Distinguishing Two Unique Motivational Orientations.Personality and social psychology review : an official journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc · 2026Review
- International Survey on Genetic Literacy and Awareness in Patients With Spinal and Bulbar Muscular Atrophy.Neurology. Genetics · 2026Article
- Addressing genetic discrimination for stronger legal protections and enhanced public awareness.NPJ genomic medicine · 2025Article
- Strategies to improve implementation of cascade testing in hereditary cancer syndromes: a systematic review.NPJ genomic medicine · 2024Article
- Future-proofing genomic data and consent management: a comprehensive review of technology innovations.GigaScience · 2024Review
- Advancing precision medicine through the integration of clinical cardiovascular genetics - An Asian perspective.Genetics in medicine open · 2024Article
- Genetic knowledge and attitudes towards genetic testing among final-year medical students at a public university in Ecuador.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Article
- Public perceptions and attitudes of the national project of bio-big data: A nationwide survey in the Republic of Korea.Frontiers in genetics · 2023Article
- Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAs a consequence of precision medicine initiatives, genomic technologies have rapidly spread around the world, raising questions about genetic privacy and the ethics of data sharing. Previous scholarship in bioethics and science and technology studies has made clear that different nations have varying expectations about trust, transparency, and public reason in relation to emerging technologies and their governance. The key aims of this article are to assess genetic literacy, perceptions of genetic testing, privacy concerns, and governing norms amongst the Singapore population by collecting surveys.
methodsThis study investigated genetic literacy and broad public attitudes toward genetic tests in Singapore with an online public survey (n = 560). To assess potential changes in attitudes following receipt of results from a genetic test, we also surveyed undergraduate students who underwent a genetic screen as part of a university class before and after they received their test results (n = 25).
resultsPublic participants showed broad support for the use of genetic tests; scored an average of 48.9% in genetic literacy; and expressed privacy concerns over data sharing and a desire for control over their genetic data. After taking a genetic test and receiving genetic test results, students reported less fear of genetic tests while other attitudes did not change significantly.
conclusionThese findings highlight the potential of genetic education and active engagement with genetic testing to increase support and participation in genomic projects, PM, and biobanking initiatives; and they suggest that data privacy protections could potentially reduce discrimination by giving participants control over who can access their data. More specifically, these findings and the dataset we provide may be helpful in formulating culturally sensitive education programs and regulations concerning genomic technologies and data privacy.
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.