ArticlePLoS genetics2025
Factors influencing trustworthiness and perceived biases of medical information and genetic testing for Black and White Americans.
Article in PLoS genetics, 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.
- Identifying and resolving ethical challenges related to the enrollment of black individuals with chronic kidney disease in U.S. health registries and clinical research: a qualitative study.Frontiers in epidemiology · 2026Article
- Opportunities to cultivate trust through communication behaviors.Frontiers in genetics · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Ensuring diversity in genomic research is crucial to address disparities in healthcare benefits experienced by Black Americans and other minority groups. Despite progress in promoting diversity, Black Americans remain underrepresented in most genetic studies, resulting in unequal access to the benefits of genetic medicine. This study investigates trusted sources of medical and genetic testing information among Black and White Americans, identifying key factors that influence trust and participation in genetic research. Using an online survey of 1,018 participants (Black Americans n = 500, White Americans n = 518), we analyzed trust and bias ratings across various sources, including medical providers, genetic counselors, and social media. Medical providers emerged as the most trusted source for both medical and genetic information across racial groups. In terms of bias, social media was viewed as most biased and medical providers as least biased across both groups. However, Black Americans reported significantly lower trust in medical providers and scientific literature compared to White Americans. Furthermore, Black Americans expressed a stronger preference for receiving medical information from individuals of the same race or ethnicity. These findings highlight the importance of tailoring communication outlets and strategies to address the specific trust concerns of underrepresented populations. Efforts to engage Black Americans in genetic research may benefit from increased involvement of medical providers and genetic counselors, improved transparency, and culturally relevant communication. By addressing these factors, the research community can work towards reducing disparities and promoting equitable access to the benefits of genetic 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.