ArticleMolecular genetics & genomic medicine2026
To Test or Not to Test: A Real-World Study of Employee Views and Decision-Making for Genetic Testing in the Workplace.
Article in Molecular genetics & genomic medicine, 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.
- To Test or Not to Test: A Real-World Study of Employee Views and Decision-Making for Genetic Testing in the Workplace.Molecular genetics & genomic medicine · 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
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis study explored employees' decision-making processes and perspectives on workplace genetic testing (wGT), comparing those who had not participated (Non-Testers) with those who had participated (Testers) in wGT.
methodsEmployees at a large US healthcare system offering wGT were recruited via email and onsite advertising and surveyed. The web survey assessed respondent demographics, information-seeking activities, and perceived benefits and risks of wGT. Descriptive statistics, Chi-square analyses, and multivariable logistic regression compared the similarities and differences between Non-Testers and Testers on key study outcomes.
resultsSurvey respondents included 358 Non-Testers (80.7% female; 69.8% White, non-Hispanic) and 418 Testers (88.3% female; 80.6% White, non-Hispanic). Demographics associated with lower odds of being a Tester included self-reporting as Black, non-Hispanic (p = 0.001), male (p = 0.004), and less than one year of employment (p < 0.001). Non-Testers endorsed more perceived risks regarding wGT (e.g., privacy, discrimination) than Testers, while Testers more commonly endorsed perceived benefits, including lack of cost and potential healthcare benefits. Non-Testers engaged in fewer information-seeking activities than Testers. Non-Testers' most common decision-making activity was talking with family (28.9%), and Testers' most common activity was engaging with the testing company's information (50.0%).
conclusionThis is the first study to examine wGT decision-making in a real-world setting. To address the perceived risks of Non-Testers and ensure equitable access, it may be necessary to develop educational materials that review current legal protections and limitations, as well as potential health benefits of genetic testing. Outreach strategies providing such education must address different types of information seeking to ensure perceived risks are addressed.
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.