Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40411146›Full record

ArticleHGG advances2025

Multidisciplinary stakeholder-informed identification of key characteristics for implementation of workplace genetic testing.

Elizabeth Charnysh, Kunal Sanghavi, Kerry A Ryan, Alyx Vogle, Alexandra Truhlar, Subhamoy Pal, Jonathan M Reader, J Scott Roberts, Charles Lee, Anya E R Prince and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in HGG advances, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

12 authors.

Elizabeth CharnyshThe Jackson Laboratory for Genomic Medicine, Farmington, CT, USA.
Kunal SanghaviThe Jackson Laboratory for Genomic Medicine, Farmington, CT, USA. Electronic address: kunal.sanghavi@jax.org.
Kerry A RyanCenter for Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine, University of Michigan School of Medicine, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Alyx VogleDepartment of Cardiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Alexandra TruhlarThe Jackson Laboratory for Genomic Medicine, Farmington, CT, USA.
Subhamoy PalMichigan Alzheimer's Disease Research Center, Department of Neurology, University of Michigan School of Medicine, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Jonathan M ReaderMichigan Alzheimer's Disease Research Center, Department of Neurology, University of Michigan School of Medicine, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
J Scott RobertsDepartment of Health Behavior and Health Equity, University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Charles LeeThe Jackson Laboratory for Genomic Medicine, Farmington, CT, USA.
Anya E R PrinceUniversity of Iowa College of Law, Iowa City, IA, USA.
W Gregory FeeroMaine Dartmouth Family Medicine Residency, Augusta, ME, USA.
INSIGHT @ Work Consortium

Funding

Genetic Counselors and Workplace Genomic TestingR01HG010679 · NHGRI · JACKSON LABORATORY · PI LEE, CHARLES, ROBERTS, SCOTT · 2020 to 2023
$3.7M
NHGRI NIH HHS R01 HG010679
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Workplace genetic testing (wGT) is an evolving model for genetic testing where employees are offered consumer genetic testing through employer-sponsored wellness programs. However, the potential harms, benefits, and key characteristics for best implementation practices for wGT have yet to be defined. To address this issue, we conducted a three-round modified Delphi process, including multiple rounds of survey and a virtual deliberative workshop, with purposely chosen wGT stakeholders (employees, employers, ethical, legal, and social implications [ELSI] professionals, genetic testing industry representatives, and healthcare professionals) to share their perspectives. From the modified Delphi process, we identified 12 key characteristics for the implementation of wGT that were perceived to increase the potential for benefit while reducing the risk of potential harms. Most participants agreed that privacy/security, voluntariness, transparency, understanding and education, anti-discrimination, employee control, and evidence-based testing measures were both important (>90%) and necessary (>75%) for the implementation of wGT. However, some participants also expressed a lack of confidence in the likelihood of achieving these characteristics in wGT programs. Overall, stakeholders expressed qualified support for wGT at the conclusion of the modified Delphi process. Their perspectives on the topic varied over the course of the process and were at least partially contingent on whether the aforementioned 12 key characteristics were met. These findings help inform the establishment of a normative framework for wGT assessment.

Indexed as

Genetic TestingStakeholder ParticipationWorkplaceDelphi TechniqueFemaleHumansMaleSurveys and QuestionnairesDelphiELSIgenetic testingwellness programsworkplace genetic testing

Identifiers

PMID40411146
PMCPMC12169765

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.