ArticlePloS one2023
Awareness, understanding, and interest in personalized medicine: A cross-sectional survey study of college students.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Beyond the genome: Public awareness of personalized medicine.Health promotion perspectives · 2025Article
- Unveiling the Disparities in the Field of Precision Medicine: A Perspective.Health science reports · 2025Article
- Bridging the gap: understanding the perspective of healthcare professional students towards precision medicine in a Nigerian tertiary institution (a cross-sectional study).BMC medical education · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionPersonalized Medicine (PM) holds great potential in healthcare. A few existing surveys have investigated awareness, understanding, and interest regarding PM in the general public; however, studies investigating college students' opinions about PM are lacking. This study aimed to evaluate the college student's awareness, understanding, and interest in PM, and their opinion was also analyzed by their gender and major.
methodsThe study samples were undergraduate students enrolled at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV). A web-based survey with 42 questions was emailed to all UNLV undergraduate students. Overall survey results were analyzed by gender and each student's major. A chi-square test evaluated the significant association between responses to questions with regard to gender or major.
resultsAmong the participants, 1225 students completed the survey. This survey found that most college students had a neutral attitude to PM and were not entirely familiar with this field. For example, most students (57.6%) had a "neutral" attitude toward PM. In addition, 77.6% of students never received any personal genetic testing. More than 80% of students thought "interests" was the most important factor in using PM, and 50% of respondents chose "somewhat likely" to the recommendation about PM from the doctor. Also of importance was the finding that a significant association between the most important factor of using PM and gender was observed (p = 0.04), and the associations between a student's major affected his or her reaction to PM, how well informed she or he was about PM, his or her attitude toward a doctor's recommendation about using PM were all significant (all participant's p<0.004).
conclusionUNLV undergraduate students had a neutral attitude to PM and were not entirely familiar with this field.
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.