ArticleEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2025
Exploring individuals' experiences with self-reported unmet need for genetic testing.
Article in European journal of human genetics : EJHG, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Perceptions of Pharmacogenomic Testing Among People With Treatment Resistant Depression: Legitimization as a Facilitator of Acceptance.Journal of genetic counseling · 2026Article
- Editorial Déjà Vu: This time, it's actually 'what's new in EJHG in May 2025?'European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2025Article
- Integrating genetic counsellors into primary care to improve patient outcomes.Nature reviews. Disease primers · 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
In practice, healthcare systems and insurers determine that there is "need" for genetic testing when there is potential for clinical utility. However, it is not currently known how the public understands the need for genetic testing and if this aligns with clinical utility. We recruited participants in Canada through a survey distributed through a market research company (Leger Opinion Panel). Participants who self-reported the need for genetic testing were then purposively sampled to complete a semi-structured virtual interview. We used an interpretive description approach and reflexive thematic analysis. We completed 19 interviews and found that participants' self-identified need for genetic testing was informed by their experiences with genetic information and the perceptions that genetic information is actionable (clinical utility) and has personal meaning (personal utility). Most participants would not be eligible for funded testing based on their personal and family history, however, they had unmet informational and psychological needs, indicating unmet need for genetic counseling. The public understanding of the need for genetic testing is complex and varied. Participants identified many benefits resulting from genetic testing which are not reflected in how need is operationalized in reimbursement decisions, however unmet expectations for testing contributed to medical distrust and dissatisfaction.
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.