Discover Community Create You

Loading publication...

Noodle always counts identifier-free feature events for service operation. With your permission, Google Analytics can also estimate audience and engagement. Search text, publication identifiers, cookies, IP addresses and browser fingerprints are never included in Noodle's first-party event counters.

Privacy details

Article

Public attitudes towards genomic risk profiling as a component of routine population screening.

Genome - 1 Oct 2013

Nicholls S G, Wilson B J, Craigie S M, Etchegary H, Castle D, Carroll J C, Potter B K, Lemyre L, Little J

Abstract excerpt

Including low penetrance genomic variants in population-based screening might enable personalization of screening intensity and follow up. The application of genomics in this way requires formal evaluation. Even if clinically beneficial, uptake would still depend on the attitudes of target populations. We developed a deliberative workshop on two hypothetical applications (in colorectal cancer and newborn...

Read the complete abstract on PubMed

Topics

Share this publication in a Topic to start or enrich a Post.

Share to Attitude to Health
Share to Colorectal Neoplasms

Methodology Data sources Editorial policy Privacy About Contact Helena Bioinformatics

Share to Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1

Share to Genetic Privacy

Share to Genome, Human

Share to Neonatal Screening

Share to Penetrance

Share to Precision Medicine

Source

Open in PubMed Open full text

Identifiers

PMID: 24237344
DOI: 10.1139/gen-2013-0070
PMCID: PMC4889424

Provenance

PubMed metadata and Literature Corpus relationships. Corpus snapshot updated 7 Sept 2026. Manifest publication-graph-cohort-2026-09-07.1.

Source receipt: pubmed, retrieved 7 Sept 2026.

Related research

Semantic proximity does not establish scientific evidence.

Research trail→

Click a neighbor to travelStep 1 · 12 closest

Public attitudes towards genomic risk profiling as a component of routine population screening.PMID 24237344Read ↗

"Is it really worth it to get tested?": primary care patients' impressions of predictive SNP testing for colon cancer.Semantic proximity Read ↗

Barriers and facilitators for population genetic screening in healthy populations: a systematic reviewSemantic proximity Read ↗

Interest and informational preferences regarding genomic testing for modest increases in colorectal cancer risk.Semantic proximity Read ↗

‘There is a lot of good in knowing, but there is also a lot of downs’: public views on ethical considerations in population genomic screeningSemantic proximity Read ↗

Genetic testing and personalized ovarian cancer screening: a survey of public attitudesSemantic proximity Read ↗

A systematic review of perceived risks, psychological and behavioral impacts of genetic testing.Semantic proximity Read ↗

Preferences of parents from diverse backgrounds on genomic screening of apparently healthy newbornsSemantic proximity Read ↗

“Is It Worth Knowing?” Focus Group Participants’ Perceived Utility of Genomic Preconception Carrier ScreeningSemantic proximity Read ↗

Stakeholder assessment of the evidence for cancer genomic tests: insights from three case studies.Semantic proximity Read ↗

The behavioral response to personalized genetic information: will genetic risk profiles motivate individuals and families to choose more healthful behaviors?Semantic proximity Read ↗

Behavioral and psychosocial responses to genomic testing for colorectal cancer risk.Semantic proximity Read ↗

GP attitudes to and expectations for providing personal genomic risk information to the public: a qualitative studySemantic proximity Read ↗

⌁Select a neighboring publication to make it the new centre.