ArticleMolecular genetics & genomic medicine2024
Genetics healthcare providers' experiences counseling patients with results from consumer genomic testing.
Article in Molecular genetics & genomic medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- How Has the Rise of Direct-To-Consumer Genetic Testing Impacted Genetic Counselling Practice? A Scoping Review.Clinical genetics · 2026Article
- Genomic Medicine and Individual Autonomy: Reflections on Knowledge Societies and Governmentality.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2026Article
- Health actions after direct-to-consumer genetic testing for medically actionable conditions.Genetics in medicine open · 2026Article
- Genetics healthcare providers' experiences counseling patients with results from consumer genomic testing.Molecular genetics & genomic medicine · 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundConsumer genomic testing (CGT), including direct-to-consumer and consumer-initiated testing, is increasingly widespread yet has limited regulatory oversight. To assess the current state, we surveyed genetics healthcare providers' experiences with CGT.
methodsA retrospective survey about experiences counseling on CGT results was completed by 139 respondents recruited from the National Society of Genetic Counselors, Clinical Cancer Genomics Community of Practice, and genetics professional societies.
resultsAmong respondents, 41% disagreed with the statement that potential benefits of CGT outweigh harms, 21% agreed, and 38% were undecided. A total of 94% encountered ≥1 challenge counseling CGT patients, including adverse psychosocial events (76%), incorrect variant interpretation (68%), and unconfirmed results (69%); unconfirmed results were more common among oncology providers (p = 0.03). Providers reporting higher total challenge scores (p = 0.004) or more psychosocial or interpretation challenges (p ≤ 0.01) were more likely to indicate CGT harms outweigh benefits. Those with higher CGT clinical volume were more likely to indicate benefits outweigh harms (p = 0.003). Additional CGT challenges included patient understanding and communication of results, false negatives, incorrect testing/care, and financial costs; seven respondents (6%) documented positive outcomes.
conclusionProviders counseling CGT patients encounter psychosocial and medical challenges. Collaborations between regulators, CGT laboratories, providers, and consumers may help mitigate risks.
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.