Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39037108›Full record

ArticleJournal of genetic counseling2025

The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act and workplace genetic testing: Knowledge and perceptions of employed adults in the United States.

Lindsay Willard, Wendy Uhlmann, Anya E R Prince, Drew Blasco, Subhamoy Pal, J Scott Roberts, INSIGHT @ Work Consortium

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Practice Recommendations for Genetic Testing of Ataxias.Annals of clinical and translational neurology · 2025
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

7 authors.

Lindsay WillardDepartment of Human Genetics, School of Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Wendy UhlmannDepartment of Human Genetics, School of Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Anya E R PrinceCollege of Law, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, USA.
Drew BlascoDepartment of Social and Behavioral Health, School of Public Health, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA.
Subhamoy PalMichigan Alzheimer's Disease Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
J Scott RobertsDepartment of Health Behavior & Health Education, School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1083-8299
INSIGHT @ Work Consortium

Funding

Research Education ComponentP30AG072931 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI DOUGLAS C NOLL · 2021 to 2026
$26.5M
Genetic Counselors and Workplace Genomic TestingR01HG010679 · NHGRI · JACKSON LABORATORY · PI LEE, CHARLES, ROBERTS, SCOTT · 2020 to 2023
$3.7M
University of Michigan Training Program in ELSI ResearchT32HG010030 · NHGRI · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI ROBERTS, SCOTT · 2018 to 2022
$962k
NHGRI NIH HHS R01 HG010679NHGRI NIH HHS T32 HG010030NIA NIH HHS P30 AG072931
6 · The paper itself

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

EmploymentGenetic PrivacyGenetic TestingHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeWorkplaceAdultFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedUnited Statesattitudesemploymentgenetic testingGINAknowledge

Identifiers

PMID39037108
PMCPMC11751123

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.