ArticleEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2026
Personal utility of genomic results: Application and validation of the PrU scale to the Australian context.
Article in European journal of human genetics : EJHG, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Personal Utility Scale (PrU) was developed in the United States to measure the usefulness of genomic results across self-knowledge, reproductive planning and practical benefits. We aimed to evaluate and validate the model with data from an Australian context. Participants (N = 1526) from a population-based genomic screening study (DNA Screen) completed a survey including the PrU at two time points following receipt of genomic results. We used confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to assess model fit and evaluated reliability and validity through internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) and correlations with related and distinct constructs. A three-factor oblique CFA model demonstrated acceptable fit of our previously reported factor structure (RMSEA = 0.09; CFI = 0.93; TLI = 0.92), with factor loadings ranging from 0.66-0.84 (self-knowledge), 0.68-0.84 (practical benefits), and 0.81-0.87 (reproductive planning). Internal consistency was high (Cronbach's α = 0.92; CI: 0.91-0.93). The FACToR positive feelings subscale was negatively correlated with the PrU overall score (r = -0.45, p < 0.001), consistent with theoretical expectations. Minimal correlation with K10 scores (r = -0.06, p = 0.07) supported discriminant validity. Our personal utility model demonstrated strong performance in an Australian sample. We validated the proposed three-factor structure, indicating the model reliably captures distinct dimensions of personal utility. As genomics becomes integrated into population screening, understanding how individuals value and use their results is essential. Our findings support the use of the PrU scale in the United States and Australia, contributing to ongoing efforts to evaluate the impact of genomic information in population screening programs and suggesting promise for use in other countries.
Identifiers
41723257What 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.