ArticleJournal of community genetics2022
Considerations for developing regulations for direct-to-consumer genetic testing: a scoping review using the 3-I framework.
Article in Journal of community genetics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- How Has the Rise of Direct-To-Consumer Genetic Testing Impacted Genetic Counselling Practice? A Scoping Review.Clinical genetics · 2026Article
- Lessons learned from viral hepatitis testing that inform law and policy responses to steatotic liver disease.Nature reviews. Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2026Review
- Acceptability, consideration, intention, and uptake of six common types of direct-to-consumer genetic tests in the Netherlands.Journal of genetic counseling · 2025Article
- Multidisciplinary stakeholder-informed identification of key characteristics for implementation of workplace genetic testing.HGG advances · 2025Article
- Changes in acceptability, consideration, intention, and uptake of direct-to-consumer genetic tests in the Netherlands from 2017 to 2022.Journal of genetic counseling · 2025Article
- Incidental genomic findings in large scale research: using the "3-I framework" to reveal policy considerations.Frontiers in genetics · 2025Article
- Policy Guidance for Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing Services: Framework Development Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Review
- Genetic Screening-Emerging Issues.Genes · 2024Review
- 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
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing exists largely outside of any regulatory schemes, and studies providing a comprehensive overview of the ethical, social, legal, and technological considerations for regulating these types of technologies are lacking. This paper uses the 3-I framework for policy analysis to analyze the ideas, interests, and institutions relevant to policy development for DTC genetic testing in North America and internationally. A scoping review was conducted. Citation databases were searched for papers addressing the ethical, social, legal, and technological implications of DTC genetic testing; stakeholder perspectives on and experiences with DTC genetic testing; or the effect of such testing on the healthcare system. Ninety-nine publications, organizational reports, governmental documents, or pieces of legislation were included. The ideas included are autonomy, informed decision making, privacy, and clinical validity and utility. The interests discussed are those of the public and healthcare providers. The institutions included are regulatory organizations such as the Food and Drug Administration in the United States, laws governing the implementation or delivery of genetic testing in general, and legislation created to protect against genetic discrimination. This analysis clarifies the ethical, social, legal, and technological issues of DTC genetic testing regulation. This information can be used by policy makers to develop or strengthen regulations for DTC genetic testing such as requiring an assessment of the clinical validity of tests before they become publicly available, controlling how tests are marketed, and stipulating requirements for healthcare provider involvement and informed consent.
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.