ArticleAmerican journal of human genetics2026
Interaction of identity and beliefs with genetic literacy.
Article in American journal of human genetics, 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.
- Psychometric validation of the education and assessment of genetic literacy or the EAGL measure.HGG advances · 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Genetic literacy goes beyond knowledge of genetic terms, as it requires sufficient skills and understanding to effectively facilitate health-related decision-making and participation in social discussions about genetic issues. Personal identity and beliefs have been shown to affect how individuals interact with new information, but rarely in the context of genetic literacy. In 2021, we created and disseminated a survey to two separate samples: 2,050 members of the US general public and 2,023 participants in a large genetic research study. We assessed genetic literacy through three components: subjective knowledge (Familiarity), objective knowledge (Knowledge), and knowledge comprehension (Skills), making this one of the only large-scale surveys to assess comprehension as a part of genetic literacy. We hypothesized that additional measures of identity and belief factors would enable a better understanding of how individuals process and retain genetic information. We found that confidence in one's genetic knowledge was the strongest predictor of positive scores in all three components, controlling nearly 25% of the variance in scores, while perceived importance of genetic information had a positive but weaker relationship to scores. This suggests that improving confidence, not just providing knowledge, is an important part of increasing uptake of genetics in various applications. Further, we found that multiple self-described beliefs had mixed predictive effects on all three of our genetic literacy subscales. These findings demonstrate the complexity inherent in endeavors to raise genetic literacy in the US population as an example, as well as the importance of context-specific genetics communication.
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.