Public attitudes towards cascade genetic screening in the United States
Clicks: 3
ID: 315878
2026
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Steady Performance
0.6
/100
3 views
2 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
SteadyRanked #72 of 98 articles by views in Health Affairs Scholar
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
Abstract Introduction After a patient receives genetic test results that indicate an actionable health condition, cascade genetic screening (CGS) is the process of evaluating the patient’s relatives for a potentially elevated genetic risk of disease. The United States (US) primarily relies on patients to communicate with their relatives, resulting in suboptimal rates of risk communication, familial genetic testing uptake, and risk-reducing interventions. There is ongoing debate about whether and how best to inform relatives of a potentially increased genetic risk. Methods We conducted a nationally representative survey of US adults to assess attitudes toward informing at-risk relatives, acceptability of system-mediated communication, and preferences for the patient’s role in risk communication. Results Respondents (n=2,056) overwhelmingly supported informing relatives about their genetic risk across condition types, with minimal disagreement (<10%) about a relative’s right to know this information. Most agreed (>45% agreed; >30% strongly agreed) they would want to decide for themselves whether their results are shared, though many favorably viewed doctor-supported communication. Direct clinician contact was acceptable (37.4%) or totally acceptable (11.5%) with patient permission but rarely acceptable without consent. Conclusion Findings indicate strong public support for sharing genetic risk information within families, alongside clear expectations for patient consent, to guide CGS implementation in the US.
| Reference Key |
openalex_W7163543138
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | Hadley Stevens Smith, Emilie Zoltick, Madison R. Hickingbotham, Emily Bonkowski, Stacey Pereira, Tara Lavelle, David L. Veenstra, Amy L McGuire, Katherine E. Bonini, Leila Jamal |
| Journal | Health Affairs Scholar |
| Year | 2026 |
| DOI |
10.1093/haschl/qxag138
|
| URL | |
| Keywords | Keywords not found |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.