OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the baseline interest of the public in whole-genome sequencing (WGS) for oneself, parents' interest in WGS for their youngest children, and factors associated with such interest. METHODS: A random sample of adults from a probability-based nationally representative online panel was surveyed. All participants were provided basic information about WGS and then asked about their interest in WGS for themselves. Those participants who were parents were additionally asked about their interest in WGS for their children. The order in which parents were asked about their interest in WGS for themselves and for their child was randomized. The relationship between parent/child characteristics and interest in WGS was examined. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 62% (55% among parents). 58.6% of the total population (parents and nonparents) was interested in WGS for themselves. Similarly, 61.8% of the parents were interested in WGS for themselves and 57.8% were interested in WGS for their youngest children. Of note, 84.7% of the parents showed an identical interest level in WGS for themselves and their youngest children. Mothers as a group and parents whose youngest children had ≥2 health conditions had significantly more interest in WGS for themselves and their youngest children, while those with conservative political ideologies had considerably less. CONCLUSIONS: While US adults have varying interest levels in WGS, parents appear to have similar interests in genome testing for themselves and their youngest children. As WGS technology becomes available in the clinic and private market, clinicians should be prepared to discuss WGS risks and benefits with their patients.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the baseline interest of the public in whole-genome sequencing (WGS) for oneself, parents' interest in WGS for their youngest children, and factors associated with such interest. METHODS: A random sample of adults from a probability-based nationally representative online panel was surveyed. All participants were provided basic information about WGS and then asked about their interest in WGS for themselves. Those participants who were parents were additionally asked about their interest in WGS for their children. The order in which parents were asked about their interest in WGS for themselves and for their child was randomized. The relationship between parent/child characteristics and interest in WGS was examined. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 62% (55% among parents). 58.6% of the total population (parents and nonparents) was interested in WGS for themselves. Similarly, 61.8% of the parents were interested in WGS for themselves and 57.8% were interested in WGS for their youngest children. Of note, 84.7% of the parents showed an identical interest level in WGS for themselves and their youngest children. Mothers as a group and parents whose youngest children had ≥2 health conditions had significantly more interest in WGS for themselves and their youngest children, while those with conservative political ideologies had considerably less. CONCLUSIONS: While US adults have varying interest levels in WGS, parents appear to have similar interests in genome testing for themselves and their youngest children. As WGS technology becomes available in the clinic and private market, clinicians should be prepared to discuss WGS risks and benefits with their patients.
Authors: Carol Jean Saunders; Neil Andrew Miller; Sarah Elizabeth Soden; Darrell Lee Dinwiddie; Aaron Noll; Noor Abu Alnadi; Nevene Andraws; Melanie LeAnn Patterson; Lisa Ann Krivohlavek; Joel Fellis; Sean Humphray; Peter Saffrey; Zoya Kingsbury; Jacqueline Claire Weir; Jason Betley; Russell James Grocock; Elliott Harrison Margulies; Emily Gwendolyn Farrow; Michael Artman; Nicole Pauline Safina; Joshua Erin Petrikin; Kevin Peter Hall; Stephen Francis Kingsmore Journal: Sci Transl Med Date: 2012-10-03 Impact factor: 17.956
Authors: Brooke L Levenseller; Danielle J Soucier; Victoria A Miller; Diana Harris; Laura Conway; Barbara A Bernhardt Journal: J Genet Couns Date: 2013-07-12 Impact factor: 2.537
Authors: Sarah Scollon; Katie Bergstrom; Robin A Kerstein; Tao Wang; Susan G Hilsenbeck; Uma Ramamurthy; Richard A Gibbs; Christine M Eng; Murali M Chintagumpala; Stacey L Berg; Laurence B McCullough; Amy L McGuire; Sharon E Plon; D Williams Parsons Journal: Genome Med Date: 2014-09-17 Impact factor: 11.117
Authors: Courtney B Caminiti; Dale C Hesdorffer; Sara Shostak; Jeff Goldsmith; Shawn T Sorge; Melodie R Winawer; Jo C Phelan; Wendy K Chung; Ruth Ottman Journal: Epilepsia Date: 2015-12-22 Impact factor: 5.864
Authors: Janet Malek; Melody J Slashinski; Jill O Robinson; Amanda M Gutierrez; D Williams Parsons; Sharon E Plon; Laurence B McCullough; Amy L McGuire Journal: JCO Precis Oncol Date: 2017-05-31
Authors: Deborah A Marshall; Juan Marcos Gonzalez; F Reed Johnson; Karen V MacDonald; Amy Pugh; Michael P Douglas; Kathryn A Phillips Journal: Genet Med Date: 2016-06-02 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Megan A Lewis; Alex Stine; Ryan S Paquin; Carol Mansfield; Dallas Wood; Christine Rini; Myra I Roche; Cynthia M Powell; Jonathan S Berg; Donald B Bailey Journal: Genet Med Date: 2017-08-03 Impact factor: 8.822