ArticleEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2026
When screening and diagnosis converge: participant interpretations of additional findings in the 100,000 genomes project.
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.
- Genomics cycle: discover, diagnose, interpret, act.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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Genomic science is a central feature of the UK government's current 10-year health plan for England, which places significant emphasis on prediction and prevention. Although NHS prevention strategies have long been aimed at catching diseases earlier and at a more treatable stage, genomics until now has focussed largely on diagnosis and treatment. At present, there is limited evidence on how patients and publics engage with uncertain and probabilistic genomic information. While the public health benefits of this turn towards genomic screening may take time to establish, insights can be gained from recent large-scale diagnostic initiatives that also offered a screening element. This article draws on a qualitative longitudinal study of 100,000 Genomes Project participants, within which decision-making around the option to receive Additional Findings (AFs) was discussed. By focusing on future health risks in asymptomatic individuals, AFs can be understood as an opportunistic form of screening. Analysis identified three interrelated themes: ambivalence, reflecting anxiety and uncertainty surrounding decisions to receive AFs; inevitability and participant's own perceptions of patterns of future risk within families; and legacy, capturing motivations framed in collective and relational terms. Participants' accounts reflected enduring expectations of genomic medicine as a source of certainty and clarity, which sits uneasily alongside probabilistic and uncertain forms of knowledge such screening approaches are likely to produce. Understanding how individuals and families conceive of the potential and pitfalls of employing genomic tests in screening contexts is vital as a range of countries pilot or adopt genomic tools in population health services.
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.