ArticleHGG advances2023
The legacy of language: What we say, and what people hear, when we talk about genomics.
Article in HGG advances, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Transforming our future by unlocking the power of DNA: the representation of health-related genomic testing in UK news items.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2026Article
- Interaction of identity and beliefs with genetic literacy.American journal of human genetics · 2026Article
- Trust and Perceived Trustworthiness in Health-Related Data Sharing Among UK Adults: Cross-Sectional Survey.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Review
- Community Collaboration in Public Health Genetic Literacy: Methods for Co-Designing Educational Resources for Equitable Genomics Research and Practice.Public health genomics · 2025Article
- Increasing Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility in Rare Disease Clinical Trials.Pharmaceutical medicine · 2024Review
- Ethical and social implications of public-private partnerships in the context of genomic/big health data collection.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2024Article
- Public engagement with genomics.Wellcome open research · 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
21 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The way we "talk" about genetics plays a vital role in whether public audiences feel at ease in having conversations about it. Our research explored whether there was any difference between "what we say" and "what people hear" when providing information about genetics to community groups who are known to be missing from genomics datasets. We conducted 16 focus groups with 100 members of the British public who had limited familiarity with genomics and self-identified as belonging to communities with Black African, Black Caribbean, and Pakistani ancestry as well as people of various ancestral heritage who came from disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds. Participants were presented with spoken messages explaining genomics and their responses to these were analyzed. Results indicated that starting conversations that framed genomics through its potential benefits were met with cynicism and skepticism. Participants cited historical and present injustices as reasons for this as well as mistrust of private companies and the government. Instead, more productive conversations led with an acknowledgment that some people have questions-and valid concerns-about genomics, before introducing any of the details about the science. To diversify genomic datasets, we need to linguistically meet public audiences
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.