ArticleJournal of personalized medicine2022
Investigating Psychological Impact after Receiving Genetic Risk Results-A Survey of Participants in a Population Genomic Screening Program.
Article in Journal of personalized medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Recommendations for return of secondary genomic findings in observational cohort studies.Nature genetics · 2026Review
- Psychological Impact ofClinical psychopharmacology and neuroscience : the official scientific journal of the Korean College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2026Article
- Understanding patient perspectives on breast cancer risk: a qualitative study to inform genetic testing communication in the primary care setting.Journal of community genetics · 2026Article
- Population Genomic Screening for Hereditary Cancer Risk: Patient Experience, Perceptions, and Downstream Clinical Outcomes.Journal of genetic counseling · 2026Article
- Genomic Medicine and Individual Autonomy: Reflections on Knowledge Societies and Governmentality.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2026Article
- Hereditary cancer syndromes with gynecological cancer risk: focus on prevention strategies.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
- Patient-initiated lifestyle changes following receipt of genetic test results in a predominantly marginalized population.Journal of genetic counseling · 2025Article
- Symposium report-ethical and social considerations regarding return of secondary findings in atomic bomb survivors.Carcinogenesis · 2025Article
- Perceived understanding and psychosocial outcomes: employees' responses to learning results of workplace genetic testing.Personalized medicine · 2025Article
- Workplace perk or pitfall? A qualitative study of genetic counselors' perspectives and experiences with workplace genetic testing.Journal of genetic counseling · 2025Article
- Genomic Screening at a Single Health System.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- Measuring perceived utility of genomic sequencing: Development and validation of the GENEtic Utility (GENE-U) scale for adult screening.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2024Article
- Returning personal genetic information on susceptibility to arsenic toxicity to research participants in Bangladesh.Environmental research · 2024Article
- Views of adults living with sickle cell disease on the theoretical return of secondary genomic findings.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2024Article
- Genomic newborn screening for rare diseases.Nature reviews. Genetics · 2023Review
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.
Funding
Abstract
Genomic screening programs have potential to benefit individuals who may not be clinically ascertained, but little is known about the psychological impact of receiving genetic results in this setting. The current study sought to further the understanding of individuals’ psychological response to receiving an actionable genetic test result from genomic screening. Telephone surveys were conducted with patient-participants at 6 weeks and 6 months post genetic result disclosure between September 2019 and May 2021 and assessed emotional response to receiving results via the FACToR, PANAS, and decision regret scales. Overall, 354 (29.4%) study participants completed both surveys. Participants reported moderate positive emotions and low levels of negative emotions, uncertainty, privacy concern, and decision regret over time. There were significant decreases in negative emotions (p = 0.0004) and uncertainty (p = 0.0126) between time points on the FACToR scale. “Interested” was the highest scoring discrete emotion (T1 3.6, T2 3.3, scale 0−5) but was significantly lower at 6 months (<0.0001). Coupled with other benefits of genomic screening, these results of modest psychological impact waning over time adds support to clinical utility of population genomic screening programs. However, questions remain regarding how to elicit an emotional response that motivates behavior change without causing psychological harm.
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.