Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41718631›Full record

ArticleClinical genetics2026

How Has the Rise of Direct-To-Consumer Genetic Testing Impacted Genetic Counselling Practice? A Scoping Review.

Cushla McKinney, Giselle Newton, Vaishnavi Nathan, Aideen McInerney-Leo

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical genetics, 2026. 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

4 authors.

Cushla McKinneyGraduate School of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo, New South Wales, Australia.
Giselle NewtonThe Centre for Digital Cultures and Societies, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-2883-335X
Vaishnavi NathanFrazer Institute, The University of Queensland, Dermatology Research Centre, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Aideen McInerney-LeoFrazer Institute, The University of Queensland, Dermatology Research Centre, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Direct to consumer genetic testing (DTC-GT) has expanded exponentially in the past decade, but little is known about Genetic Health Practitioners' (GHPs') experience with, attitudes towards, and capacity to support DTC-GT consumers. This scoping review aimed to consolidate empirical research to understand GHP and consumer needs and identify knowledge gaps. Forty-four publications from 2007 to 2025 covering GHP attitudes towards DTC-GT and GHP/consumer experiences of counselling (n = 30); company provision of counselling (n = 12); and counsellor-designed tools for DTC-GT consumers (n = 2) were reviewed. Of studies reporting GHP attitudes and experiences, the majority (82%) focused on GHPs in clinical settings. GHPs considered counselling necessary for informed consent and result interpretation, but felt this was outside their professional responsibilities, wanted additional resources and clearer practice guidelines. Despite considering counselling the responsibility of the DTC-GT companies, many GHPs were concerned about inherent conflicts of interest and wanted greater industry oversight and regulation. Little literature on the extent of company-provided counselling (n = 12) was identified, and none on quality. This review highlights the need to clarify the roles and scope of GHPs in clinical practice regarding DTC-GT, to develop best-practice models, and for more research on the nature and efficacy of counselling by GHPs in company and non-clinical settings.

Indexed as

Direct-To-Consumer Screening and TestingGenetic CounselingGenetic TestingHumansdirect‐to‐consumerDTC‐GTgenetic counsellinggenetic counsellorgenetic health practitionergeneticistgenetic testpersonal genomicsscoping review

Identifiers

PMID41718631
PMCPMC13066775

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.