ReviewNPJ genomic medicine2022
Voluntary workplace genomic testing: wellness benefit or Pandora's box?
Review in NPJ genomic medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Views and experiences regarding workplace genetic testing: findings from a national survey of U.S. employees.Journal of community genetics · 2026Article
- Genetic counselors' perspectives and experiences with workplace genetic testing: Results of a national survey.Genetics in medicine open · 2026Article
- Multidisciplinary stakeholder-informed identification of key characteristics for implementation of workplace genetic testing.HGG advances · 2025Article
- Workplace perk or pitfall? A qualitative study of genetic counselors' perspectives and experiences with workplace genetic testing.Journal of genetic counseling · 2025Article
- Workplace Genomic Testing: What Do Company Websites Say about Federal Privacy and Anti-Discrimination Laws?Public health genomics · 2025Article
- Are employees ready to engage in genetic cancer risk assessment in the workplace setting?European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2025Article
- Health care utilization and behavior changes after workplace genetic testing at a large US health care system.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2024Article
- Genomic testing in voluntary workplace wellness programs in the US: Evidence and challenges.Molecular genetics & genomic medicine · 2023Review
- Direct-to-consumer genetic testing in the news: a descriptive analysis.Journal of community genetics · 2023Article
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of implementing polygenic risk score in a workplace cardiovascular disease prevention program.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Consumer interest in genetic and genomic testing is growing rapidly, with more than 26 million Americans having purchased direct-to-consumer genetic testing services. Capitalizing on the increasing comfort of consumers with genetic testing outside the clinical environment, commercial vendors are expanding their customer base by marketing genetic and genomic testing services, including testing for pharmacogenomic and pathogenic variants, to employers for inclusion in workplace wellness programs. We describe the appeal of voluntary workplace genomic testing (wGT) to employers and employees, how the ethical, legal, and social implications literature has approached the issue of genetic testing in the workplace in the past, and outline the relevant legal landscape. Given that we are in the early stages of development of the wGT market, now is the time to identify the critical interests and concerns of employees and employers, so that governance can develop and evolve along with the wGT market, rather than behind it, and be based on data, rather than speculative hopes and fears.
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.