Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 Jan;69(1):19-25.
doi: 10.1038/s10038-023-01199-1. Epub 2023 Nov 1.

Diversity of thought: public perceptions of genetic testing across ethnic groups in the UK

Affiliations

Diversity of thought: public perceptions of genetic testing across ethnic groups in the UK

Benjamin H L Harris et al. J Hum Genet. 2024 Jan.

Abstract

Genetic testing is becoming rapidly more accessible to the general populous either through or outside healthcare systems. Few large-scale studies have been carried out to gauge public opinion in this growing area. Here, we undertook the largest cross-sectional study on genetic testing in the UK. The primary purpose of this study is to identify the differences in attitudes toward genetic testing across ethnic groups. A cohort of 6500 individuals from a diverse population completed a 72-item survey in a cross-sectional study. Responses between ethnic minority and white individuals in the UK were compared using a wilcoxon rank-sum and chi-square tests. The white cohort was approximately twice as likely to have taken a genetic test and 13% more had heard about genetic testing before the survey. The ethnic minority cohort appeared more apprehensive about the impact of genetic testing on employability. This study highlights that in the UK, significant differences in opinions regarding genetic testing exist between white individuals and ethnic minority individuals. There is an urgent need to develop more inclusive strategies to equally inform individuals from all backgrounds to avoid disparities in the utilisation of genetic testing.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Statements perceived and questions answered most differently between Group EM+ and Group W in three sections of the survey. The statements perceived and questions answered most differently in the first three sections of the survey: a knowledge and familiarity with genetic testing (“I have previously undertaken a genetic test”), b actions or feelings as a result of a supposed genetic test (“If I learnt from a genetic test that I had an increased risk of developing cancer, I would worry that it would affect my chances of finding a job”), c predicted future applications of genetic testing (“In 5–10 years time, potential employees will have to do a genetic test before they are hired”) and there were no questions answered significantly differently between the two groups in “concerns or apprehensions surrounding genetic testing”. Each bar sums to 100% and the distribution of each category is shown using different colours. For (a) red = yes, light blue = unsure and dark blue = no, whereas in (bc) light to dark red denotes agreement and light to dark blue denotes disagreement
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Statements perceived most differently between Group EM+ and Group W in their in their personal understanding of biology and genetics. The Likert scale chart shows marked differences between the two groups. The chart represents the items with the three lowest p-values (greatest difference between the groups). Each bar sums to 100% and the distribution of each category is shown using different colours (light to dark red denotes agreement whereas light to dark blue denotes disagreement)

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Phillips KA, Deverka PA, Hooker GW, Douglas MP. Genetic test availability and spending: where are we now? Where are we going? Health Aff. 2018;37:710–6. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2017.1427. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Assessing Genetic Risks, Andrews, LB, Fullarton, JE, Holtzman, NA & Motulsky, AG Genetic Testing and Assessment. Assessing genetic risks: implications for health and social policy. USA: National Academies Press; 1994. - PubMed
    1. Di Giovannantonio M, Harris BH, Zhang P, Kitchen-Smith I, Xiong L, Sahgal N, et al. Heritable genetic variants in key cancer genes link cancer risk with anthropometric traits. J Med Genet. 2021;58:392–9. doi: 10.1136/jmedgenet-2019-106799. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bloss CS, Jeste DV, Schork NJ. Genomics for disease treatment and prevention. Psychiatr Clin N Am. 2011;34:147–66. doi: 10.1016/j.psc.2010.11.005. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Cherkas LF, Harris JM, Levinson E, Spector TD, Prainsack B. A survey of UK public interest in internet-based personal genome testing. PLoS ONE. 2010;5:10. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0013473. - DOI - PMC - PubMed