The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Motivations and Perceptions of Early Adopters of Personalized Genomics: Perspectives from Research Participants
Open accessAbstract
Background/Aims: To predict the potential public health impact of personal genomics, empirical research on public perceptions of these services is needed. In this study, ‘early adopters’ of personal genomics were surveyed to assess their motivations, perceptions and intentions. Methods: Participants were recruited from everyone who registered to attend an enrollment event for the Coriell Personalized Medicine Collaborative, a United States-based (Camden, N.J.) research study of the utility of personalized medicine, between March 31, 2009 and April 1, 2010 (n = 369). Participants completed an Internet-based survey about their motivations, awareness of personalized medicine, perceptions of study risks and benefits, and intentions to share results with health care providers. Results: Respondents were motivated to participate for their own curiosity and to find out their disease risk to improve their health. Fewer than 10% expressed deterministic perspectives about genetic risk, but 32% had misperceptions about the research study or personal genomic testing. Most respondents perceived the study to have health-related benefits. Nearly all (92%) intended to share their results with physicians, primarily to request specific medical recommendations. Conclusion: Early adopters of personal genomics are prospectively enthusiastic about using genomic profiling information to improve their health, in close consultation with their physicians. This suggests that early users (i.e. through direct-to-consumer companies or research) may follow up with the health care system. Further research should address whether intentions to seek care match actual behaviors.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
An agenda for personalized medicine
Ng, P. C., Murray, S. S., Levy, S., & Venter, J. C. (2009) · Nature · doi:10.1038/461724a · Cited by 330
Cited by
Disclosure of genetic information and change in dietary intake: a randomized controlled trial
Nielsen, D. E., & El-Sohemy, A. (2014) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0112665 · Cited by 157
van der Wouden, C. H., Carere, D. A., Maitland-van der Zee, A. H., Ruffin, M. T., Roberts, J. S., Green, R. C., & for the Impact of Personal Genomics Study Group†* (2016) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/m15-0995 · Cited by 95
First, do no harm: direct-to-consumer genetic testing
Schleit, J., Naylor, L. V., & Hisama, F. M. (2019) · Genetics in Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41436-018-0071-z · Cited by 28
Wäscher, S., Schildmann, J., Brall, C., & Vollmann, J. (2013) · Ethik in der Medizin · doi:10.1007/s00481-013-0268-2 · Cited by 8
Wöhlke, S., Heßling, A., & Schicktanz, S. (2013) · Ethik in der Medizin · doi:10.1007/s00481-013-0263-7 · Cited by 4
Metadata
- Authors
- Gollust, S. E., Gordon, E. S., Zayac, C., Griffin, G., Christman, M. F., Pyeritz, R. E., Wawak, L., & Bernhardt, B. A.
- Venue
- Public Health Genomics
- Publisher
- S. Karger AG
- Published
- 2011-06-03
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 22-30
- ISSN
- 1422-2795 (ISSN-L)
- 1662-4246
- 1662-8063
- OpenAlex
- W2059439034
- Cited by
- 175
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 20.58
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Motivations and Perceptions of Early Adopters of Personalized Genomics: Perspectives from Research Participants. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1159/000327296
- The paper
- Gollust, S. E., Gordon, E. S., Zayac, C., Griffin, G., Christman, M. F., Pyeritz, R. E., Wawak, L., & Bernhardt, B. A. (2012). Motivations and Perceptions of Early Adopters of Personalized Genomics: Perspectives from Research Participants. Public Health Genomics. https://doi.org/10.1159/000327296
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.