Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38637700›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2024

"Uninsurable because of a genetic test": a qualitative study of consumer views about the use of genetic test results in Australian life insurance.

Cassandra Muller, Lyndon Gallacher, Louise Keogh, Aideen McInerney-Leo, Tiffany Boughtwood, Penny Gleeson, Kristine Barlow-Stewart, Martin B Delatycki, Ingrid Winship, Kristen J Nowak and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of human genetics : EJHG, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Hitting the heights with CiteScore.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2024
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Cassandra MullerUniversity of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia.
Lyndon GallacherUniversity of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-2245-9034
Louise KeoghCentre for Health Equity, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Aideen McInerney-LeoFrazer Institute, The University of Queensland, Dermatology Research Centre, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-0059-5732
Tiffany BoughtwoodMurdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, VIC, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-9634-3731
Penny GleesonDeakin Law School, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Kristine Barlow-StewartNorthern Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, VIC, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-1831-9944
Martin B DelatyckiVictorian Clinical Genetics Services, Parkville, VIC, Australia.
Ingrid WinshipDepartment of Medicine, the University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Kristen J NowakOffice of Population Health Genomics, Western Australia Department of Health, Perth, WA, Australia.
Margaret OtlowskiFaculty of Law and Centre for Law and Genetics, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS, Australia.
Paul LacazePublic Health Genomics, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-0902-6798
Jane TillerMurdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, VIC, Australia. jane.tiller@monash.edu.ORCID 0000-0003-3906-6632

Funding

Department of Health | National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) 1158111
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Genetic testing can provide valuable information to mitigate personal disease risk, but the use of genetic results in life insurance underwriting is known to deter many consumers from pursuing genetic testing. In 2019, following Australian Federal Parliamentary Inquiry recommendations, the Financial Services Council (FSC) introduced an industry-led partial moratorium, prohibiting life insurance companies from using genetic test results for policies up to $AUD500,000. We used semi-structured interviews to explore genetic test consumers' experiences and views about the FSC moratorium and the use of genetic results by life insurers. Individuals who participated in an online survey and agreed to be re-contacted to discuss the issue further were invited. Interviews were 20-30-min long, conducted via video conference, transcribed verbatim and analysed using inductive content analysis. Twenty-seven participants were interviewed. Despite the moratorium, concerns about genetic discrimination in life insurance were prevalent. Participants reported instances where life insurers did not consider risk mitigation when assessing risk for policies based on genetic results, contrary to legal requirements. Most participants felt that the moratorium provided inadequate protection against discrimination, and that government legislation regulating life insurers' use of genetic results is necessary. Many participants perceived the financial limits to be inadequate, given the cost-of-living in Australia. Our findings indicate that from the perspective of participants, the moratorium has not been effective in allaying fears about genetic discrimination or ensuring adequate access to life insurance products. Concern about genetic discrimination in life insurance remains prevalent in Australia.

Indexed as

Genetic TestingInsurance, LifeAdultAgedAustraliaFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedQualitative Research

Identifiers

PMID38637700
PMCPMC11219861

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.