ReviewWellcome open research2023
Public engagement with genomics.
Review in Wellcome open research, 2023. 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.
- Review
- Public and patient involvement: exploring public partnership in pathogen whole-genome sequencing research and its data visualisation.Microbial genomics · 2026Article
- A citizen-centred approach to public engagement on the ethical, legal and societal issues of health technologies.Public understanding of science (Bristol, England) · 2025Article
- How participation in deliberative engagement affects awareness of, and attitudes towards, genomics research and data sharing: evidence from rural Ghana.BMC medical ethics · 2025Article
- The expanding global genomics landscape: Converging priorities from national genomics programs.American journal of human genetics · 2025Review
- Towards a trusted genomics repository: Identifying commercialisation fears and preferred forms of governance across segments of the community.Public understanding of science (Bristol, England) · 2025Article
- 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
- The legacy of language: What we say, and what people hear, when we talk about genomics.HGG advances · 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
31 authors.
Funding
Abstract
As detailed in its flagship report, Genome UK, the UK government recognises the vital role that broad public engagement across whole populations plays in the field of genomics. However, there is limited evidence about how to do this at scale. Most public audiences do not feel actively connected to science, are oftenunsure of the relevance to their lives and rarely talk to their family and friends about; we term this dis-connection a 'disengaged public audience'. We use a narrative review to explore: (i) UK attitudes towards genetics and genomics and what may influence reluctance to engage with these topics; (ii) innovative public engagement approaches that have been used to bring diverse public audiences into conversations about the technology. Whilst we have found some novel engagement methods that have used participatory arts, film, social media and deliberative methods, there is no clear agreement on best practice. We did not find a consistently used, evidence-based strategy for delivering public engagement about genomics across diverse and broad populations, nor a specific method that is known to encourage engagement from groups that have historically felt (in terms of perception) and been (in reality) excluded from genomic research. We argue there is a need for well-defined, tailor-made engagement strategies that clearly articulate the audience, the purpose and the proposed impact of the engagement intervention. This needs to be coupled with robust evaluation frameworks to build the evidence-base for population-level engagement strategies.
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.