Back

Elective genomic sequencing for adults in research, clinical and commercial contexts

Linderman, M. D.; Adelson, S. M.; Berro, T. M.; Anderson, J. L.; Crawford, S. D.; Cunningham, T. J.; Esplin, E. D.; Ewing-Crawford, A. T.; Nielsen, D. E.; Pereira, S.; Schmidlen, T.; Andrighetti, H.; Bleyl, S. B.; Church, G. M.; Haverfield, E. V.; Hegde, M.; Konstantinos, L. N.; Kruszka, P.; Leonard, D.; May, T.; McGinniss, M.; Pandya, V.; Schadt, E. E.; Greshake Tzovaras, B.; Zettler, B.; McGuire, A. L.; Green, R. C.; PeopleSeq Study Team,

2026-06-18 genetic and genomic medicine
10.64898/2026.06.09.26355296 medRxiv
Show abstract

Purpose: Elective genomic sequencing (EGS) returns monogenic disease findings in multiple genes, including potentially novel variants, and may also provide participants with carrier status, pharmacogenomic and other health-related information. The PeopleSeq Study assessed participants' motivations for and concerns about EGS and the associated clinical and psychosocial outcomes across diverse EGS providers. Methods: We administered a shared questionnaire to participants who chose to undergo EGS via 18 academic, clinical, or commercial EGS platforms. Results: We enrolled 1575 participants, of whom 1147 (72.8%) completed a questionnaire after receiving their EGS results. A majority (60.3%) of the participants who completed a post-result questionnaire self-reported receiving results they assessed as important, including negative findings, and 75.9% reported a form of health-related utility. Among a subset (19.4%) who shared their EGS reports, 16.6% (37 of n=223) received a monogenic finding and self-reported results deemed "important" were consistent with EGS reports. Most participants (74.1%) discussed their results with their family, but fewer discussed their results with a healthcare provider other than the site team (41.7%) or had one or more medical visits as a direct result of their EGS testing (23.1%). Participants expressed diverse motivations for EGS, with 91.4% expressing interest in their personal disease risk and 54% who expressed quasi-indication-based motivations related to family medical history. Individuals motivated by family history reported important results at a significantly higher rate. Conclusions: Early adopters of EGS are motivated by general interest in their health as well as quasi-indication-based considerations such as family history. A majority of participants learned results they considered medically important, but a much smaller segment engaged healthcare providers with their results.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Genetics in Medicine
78 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
39.9%
2
Genetics in Medicine Open
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.3%
3
European Journal of Human Genetics
58 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
5.5%
50% of probability mass above
4
The American Journal of Human Genetics
234 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.3%
5
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
71 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.8%
6
Genome Medicine
183 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.5%
7
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 44%
2.1%
8
Journal of Personalized Medicine
28 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.1%
9
Genes
144 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
10
The Journal of Pediatrics
16 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.7%
11
Human Genetics and Genomics Advances
84 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.7%
12
Communications Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
13
npj Genomic Medicine
36 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.7%
14
The Journal of Molecular Diagnostics
39 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.4%
15
npj Digital Medicine
118 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.4%
16
JAMA
18 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.1%
17
BMC Medical Genomics
50 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.1%
18
JAMA Network Open
130 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.0%
19
Cancer Medicine
26 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.9%
20
BMJ Health & Care Informatics
15 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.9%
21
Journal of Medical Genetics
29 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.9%
22
Nature Communications
5641 papers in training set
Top 56%
0.9%
23
British Journal of Cancer
49 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
24
JMIR Public Health and Surveillance
45 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%
25
Value in Health
11 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.6%