ArticleEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2026
'Everyday genetics' in the Mass Observation Project: insights on genetics from people writing for an archive of everyday life in Britain.
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. 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.
- When screening and diagnosis converge: participant interpretations of additional findings in the 100,000 genomes project.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Over the past two decades, genetic testing has undergone major shifts in its accessibility and in its nature. Historically, it primarily involved analysis of single genes selected on the basis of symptoms or family history, and was available only to a few. Now, options range from diagnostic clinical genomic tests, to broader screens offered to 'healthy' populations, to direct-to-consumer tests offering to explore ancestry. As genetic testing becomes an increasingly 'everyday' encounter, we sought to explore how the topics of genetics (and genomics) were considered in the Mass Observation Project, an archive of writing by 'ordinary' people about everyday life in Britain. 55% of the 147 respondents had personal experience of genetic testing or knew someone who had, typically to explore ancestry. Responses often gave the sense of genetic testing as a powerful tool in healthcare with results that were fairly definitive. Genomic testing was typically written about as an amplification of genetic testing, generating information of similar solidity. Writers threaded together personal experiences with insights drawn from a wide variety of media, often quite old, in outlining their ideas. While many positioned genetics as outside their remit, respondents engaged in depth with the opportunities and challenges raised, advocating for ethical/societal considerations to form a key part of decision-making regarding genetics. Our analysis shows that people without prior experience of clinical genetic testing may yet have a wealth of experiences and exposures sculpting their expectations as to what testing stands to bring. Consent conversations may benefit from exploring these.
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.