ArticleFrontiers in genetics2024
Workplace genetic testing: which employees are likely to participate, what are their concerns with employer sponsorship, and which design features could reduce barriers and increase participation?
Article in Frontiers in genetics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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
- Perceived understanding and psychosocial outcomes: employees' responses to learning results of workplace genetic testing.Personalized medicine · 2025Article
- Multidisciplinary stakeholder-informed identification of key characteristics for implementation of workplace genetic testing.HGG advances · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Voluntary genetic testing (GT) leverages low-cost DNA sequencing and other testing methods to provide genetic risk screening for healthy individuals. Given the potential to prevent disease and promote health, some employers now offer GT as an employee benefit (workplace GT, or wGT), but participation remains low. To investigate facilitators and barriers to wGT participation, we conducted one of the first representative surveys of working U.S. adults on this topic (n = 958). We assessed factors that could influence participation, including: sponsoring entity (health provider or employer), program design, and individual demographics. Two-thirds (68%) of respondents indicated willingness to participate in some type of GT, but only half (49%) expressed willingness to participate through their employer. Women were 60% more willing to participate than men, and individuals with previous genetic testing experience were 143% more willing to participate than those without such experience. Across all demographic groups, certain GT program design features tended to increase or decrease willingness to participate. The ability to have one's data deleted from the GT database increased willingness most often (true for 67% of respondents), while selling data to pharmaceutical companies decreased willingness most often (true for 63% of respondents).
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.