ArticleJournal of genetic counseling2025
The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act and workplace genetic testing: Knowledge and perceptions of employed adults in the United States.
Article in Journal of genetic counseling, 2025. 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.
- Strengthening legal safeguards against genetic discrimination: review and recommendations for Malaysia.Journal of community genetics · 2026Review
- Views and experiences regarding workplace genetic testing: findings from a national survey of U.S. employees.Journal of community genetics · 2026Article
- Genetic counselors' perspectives and experiences with workplace genetic testing: Results of a national survey.Genetics in medicine open · 2026Article
- Lynch Syndrome in Focus: A Multidisciplinary Review of Cancer Risk, Clinical Management, and Special Populations.Cancers · 2025Review
- Practice Recommendations for Genetic Testing of Ataxias.Annals of clinical and translational neurology · 2025Review
- Multidisciplinary stakeholder-informed identification of key characteristics for implementation of workplace genetic testing.HGG advances · 2025Article
- Workplace perk or pitfall? A qualitative study of genetic counselors' perspectives and experiences with workplace genetic testing.Journal of genetic counseling · 2025Article
- The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act and workplace genetic testing: Knowledge and perceptions of employed adults in the United States.Journal of genetic counseling · 2025Article
- Workplace Genomic Testing: What Do Company Websites Say about Federal Privacy and Anti-Discrimination Laws?Public health genomics · 2025Article
- Workplace genetic testing: which employees are likely to participate, what are their concerns with employer sponsorship, and which design features could reduce barriers and increase participation?Frontiers in genetics · 2024Article
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
Workplace wellness programs are an emerging avenue for health-related genetic testing, with some large employers now offering such testing to employees. Employees' knowledge and concerns regarding genetic discrimination may impact their decision-making about and uptake of workplace genetic testing (wGT). This study describes employed adults' objective knowledge of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) and evaluates how this knowledge correlates with attitudes and beliefs regarding wGT. Analyses utilized data from a large, national web-based survey of employed adults (N = 2000; mean age = 43 years; 51% female; 55.2% college educated). Overall, most respondents (57.3%) said they were unaware of any laws protecting against genetic discrimination. Specifically, 62.6% indicated they were not at all familiar with GINA. The primary study outcome was respondents' score on a 13-item measure assessing knowledge of basic facts about GINA. Participants had low overall GINA knowledge (M = 4.6/13 items correct (35%), SD = 2.9), with employees often presuming GINA offers greater legal protections than it does (e.g., 45.3% erroneously endorsed that GINA protected against discrimination in life insurance). Logistic regression analyses assessed associations between GINA knowledge and employees' demographic characteristics, prior experience with genetic testing, and attitudes regarding wGT. Variables significantly associated with GINA knowledge included higher interest in wGT (aOR = 1.45; 95% CI: 1.20, 1.77), self-reported familiarity with GINA (aOR = 2.02; 95% CI: 1.64, 2.50), and favorable attitudes toward wGT (aOR = 1.92; 95% CI: 1.52, 2.44). Results indicate public knowledge of GINA remains low over 15 years after its passage. These findings highlight the need for employee education on GINA before participating in wGT, as well as broader public education on GINA's legal protections and limitations. Genetic counselors lead GINA education efforts in clinical and public settings and can play a pivotal role in ongoing public education initiatives about GINA.
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.