ArticleJournal of genetic counseling2025
Workplace perk or pitfall? A qualitative study of genetic counselors' perspectives and experiences with workplace genetic testing.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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
- Workplace perk or pitfall? A qualitative study of genetic counselors' perspectives and experiences with workplace genetic testing.Journal of genetic counseling · 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
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Some employers offer genetic testing for increased cancer and cardiovascular disease risk, as well as pharmacogenetic variants, as a wellness benefit, which presents unique considerations for genetic counseling. Our ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSI) of genomics study, positioned in a post-positivist paradigm, aimed to qualitatively assess the perspectives and experiences of genetic counselors (GCs) who had counseled on workplace genetic testing (wGT). Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 18 US GCs who either worked in the wGT industry (i.e., role-directed wGT experience) or provided post-test counseling in a clinical setting (i.e., patient-directed wGT experience). Interviews were analyzed following the principles of codebook thematic analysis using a codebook developed from key domains from the interview guide and emergent themes that were identified during data collection. De-identified transcripts were double-coded. Both role-directed and patient-directed GCs recognized the potential benefits of wGT such as increasing access to genetic services and thereby improving health outcomes. However, patient-directed GCs had more concerns about the lack of access to follow-up care and increasing healthcare disparities. Role-directed GCs were generally more supportive of wGT and were more likely to endorse the benefits. Overall, both role- and patient-directed GCs emphasized the need for guardrails, particularly adequate pre- and post-test education, to mitigate potential harms of wGT, such as lack of informed decision-making, psychological distress, false reassurance, and decisional regret. GCs spontaneously drew parallels between wGT and population genomic screening efforts, noting that wGT similarly attempts to increase access to genetic testing for the general population. GCs' perspectives on strategies to maximize the benefits and minimize the harms of wGT may inform ELSI considerations when developing population genomic screening efforts and other programs that aim to expand access to genetic testing for the general population.
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.