ArticleAmerican journal of human genetics2022
Family secrets: Experiences and outcomes of participating in direct-to-consumer genetic relative-finder services.
Article in American journal of human genetics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- Sharing behavior and health care utilization following direct-to-consumer genetic testing: a systematic review.Open research Europe · 2025Pooled it
- The Ripple Effects of Misattributed Parentage: The Systemic Family Impact of "Not Parent Expected" Discoveries.Family process · 2026Article
- Patient views on receiving a pharmacogenetic passport - a mixed methods study exploring experiences and use after an opportunistic offer.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2026Article
- Tracing the Right Path: Determination of Large Pedigree Segmentation and Relatedness.Behavior genetics · 2026Article
- Power and Limitations of Inferring Genetic Ancestry.Annals of human genetics · 2025Review
- Next-generation nephrology: part 1-an aid for genetic and genomic testing in pediatric nephrology.Pediatric nephrology (Berlin, Germany) · 2025Review
- Misattributed paternity discovery: A critique of medical organizations' recommendations.American journal of human genetics · 2025Review
- A Qualitative Study of Primary Care Physicians' Approaches to Caring for Adult Adopted Patients.Annals of family medicine · 2025Article
- Article
- Investigative genetic genealogy practices warranting policy attention: Results of a modified policy Delphi.PLoS genetics · 2025Article
- 'I have to remind myself that everyone's search is different': experiences and outcomes of searching and not searching for donor connections among donor conceived adults.Human reproduction (Oxford, England) · 2024Article
- Searching across-cohort relatives in 54,092 GWAS samples via encrypted genotype regression.PLoS genetics · 2024Article
- Secure Comparisons of Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms Using Secure Multiparty Computation: Method Development.JMIR bioinformatics and biotechnology · 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
11 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
In recent decades, genetic genealogy has become popular as a result of direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing. Some DTC genetic testing companies offer genetic relative-finder (GRF) services that compare the DNA of consenting participants to identify genetic relatives among them and provide each participant a list of their relative matches. We surveyed a convenience sample of GRF service participants to understand the prevalence of discoveries and associated experiences. Almost half (46%) of the 23,196 respondents had participated in GRF services only for non-specific reasons that included interest in building family trees and general curiosity. However, most (82%) also learned the identity of at least one genetic relative. Separately, most respondents (61%) reported learning something new about themselves or their relatives, including potentially disruptive information such as that a person they believed to be their biological parent is in fact not or that they have a sibling they had not known about. Respondents generally reported that discovering this new information had a neutral or positive impact on their lives, and most had low regret regarding their decision to participate in GRF services. Yet some reported making life changes as a result of their discoveries. Compared to respondents making other types of discoveries, those who learned that they were donor conceived reported the highest decisional regret and represented the largest proportion reporting net-negative consequences for themselves. Our findings indicate that discoveries from GRF services may be common and that the consequences for individuals, while generally positive, can be far-reaching and complex.
Indexed as
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.