ArticleJournal of genetic counseling2026
Consumer Experiences and Perceptions of Genetic Counseling in Provider-Mediated Genetic Testing.
Article in Journal of genetic counseling, 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
Abstract
Provider-mediated genetic testing (PM-GT) is a hybrid model in which consumers initiate testing online, but a physician, typically from a third-party network, is required to order the test. While genetic counseling is a critical component of result interpretation and medical decision-making, its integration into PM-GT remains limited. This study explored how consumers engaged with genetic counseling in the context of PM-GT, including factors that influenced whether they pursued it and their perceptions of its value. Participants had previously undergone a 59-gene panel test for cancer and cardiovascular disease risk through Color Health, a PM-GT company. Twenty-nine participants completed qualitative interviews about their testing experience and a follow-up survey that was focused on genetic counseling. Post-test counseling was required only for individuals with positive results and was optional for those with negative or variant of uncertain significance (VUS) results. Using quantitative content analysis and qualitative inductive content analysis, we found that while most participants did not engage in pre- or post-test counseling, nearly half of those who had not yet spoken with a genetic counselor after receiving their results expressed interest in doing so in the future. Participants often viewed the counseling that was offered by the testing company as helpful for understanding their results, clarifying disease risk, and guiding medical decisions. Time constraints were the most frequently cited barrier to accessing genetic counseling services. These findings indicate a gap between consumers' interest in counseling and their actual uptake of services, suggesting that many consumers who could benefit from counseling do not receive it. More proactive integration of genetic counseling into the PM-GT process could help bridge this gap and ensure that consumers are appropriately supported regardless of their test results.
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.