ArticleClinical genetics2026
How Has the Rise of Direct-To-Consumer Genetic Testing Impacted Genetic Counselling Practice? A Scoping Review.
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.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.