SynthesisEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2025
Preferences for genetic testing among populations underrepresented in genomic research: a systematic review.
Synthesis in European journal of human genetics : EJHG, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Factors influencing public willingness to participate in population-based hereditary cancer genetic testing: a qualitative study of public preferences.Familial cancer · 2026Article
- Frequency and Spectrum of Actionable Secondary Findings in the Maltese Population.Molecular genetics & genomic medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Equitable implementation of genomic medicine requires understanding preferences of diverse populations. Stated preference methods, such as discrete choice experiments (DCEs) and conjoint analyses, allow empirical evaluation of whether and how preferences for aspects of genomic medicine tests and services differ according to demographic characteristics. We aimed to understand the extent to which stated preference research in genomic medicine includes respondents that are population representative and evidence regarding preference heterogeneity by race and ethnicity. We conducted a systematic review of the stated preference literature in genomic medicine. We searched Web of Science, CINAHL, PsycINFO, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and SCOPUS for articles published from February 2021 to November 2023, extending a previously published systematic review. We extracted information on whether demographic characteristics of respondents were reported, whether investigators tested for preference heterogeneity based on race and ethnicity, and whether preference heterogeneity by race and ethnicity was identified. We identified 138 newly published records in addition to the 38 articles included in the original review. In total, we included 18 articles that reported participants' race or ethnicity. Eight articles explicitly analyzed preferences by race and ethnicity, and preference heterogeneity was identified in two. Stated preference research in genomic medicine often does not include population representative samples, and preference heterogeneity is not frequently analyzed according to race and ethnicity. Improving the representativeness of respondent populations, which allows for better understanding of whether and how preferences may differ by population subgroups, is important to guide policy and implementation decisions in genomic medicine.
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.