ArticleJournal of primary care & community health
Neighborhood Disadvantage and Genetic Testing Use Among a Nationally Representative Sample of US Adults.
Article in Journal of primary care & community health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A Zebra in Horse's Clothing: Rethinking the Diagnosis of Rare Diseases.Molecular genetics & genomic medicine · 2025Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionGenetic testing helps individuals with disease management, family planning, and medical decision-making. Identifying individual-level factors related to the use of genetic services is essential but may only partially explain differential genetic service usage. To address this knowledge gap, we analyzed data on a national sample of US adults to evaluate whether higher neighborhood vulnerability is significantly associated with lower genetic testing utilization, controlling for sociodemographic and health characteristics.
methodsA 2024 nationally representative cross-sectional survey of 631 US adults recruited using NORC's probability-based AmeriSpeak panel. Genetic testing uptake was measured as self-reported ever use of ancestry, personal trait, specific disease, or prenatal genetic carrier testing. Secondary outcomes were indicator variables for each genetic testing type. Neighborhood vulnerability (low versus high) was measured by the Social Vulnerability Index, capturing socioeconomic factors affecting community resilience to natural hazards and disasters.
resultsForty-eight percent of the weighted sample used genetic testing services. Compared to those in low vulnerability areas, individuals in high vulnerability areas had 42% lower odds (adjusted OR: 0.58, 95% CI: 0.37-0.90) of using genetic testing services, controlling for individual-level characteristics. Secondary analyses showed no evidence of statistically significant relationships between neighborhood vulnerability and specific types of genetic testing services.
conclusionFindings suggest that neighborhood vulnerability may contribute to differences in genetic testing uptake, which is crucial to increasing early detection of cancer susceptibility and reducing US cancer incidence. This study demonstrates the importance of going beyond examining individual characteristics to investigating structural factors negatively impacting genetic testing usage.
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.