This paper is in the following e-collection/theme issue:

Personal Health Records, Patient-Accessible Electronic Health Records, Patient Portals (542) Consumer & Patient Education and Shared-Decision Making (638)

Published on in Vol 17, No 6 (2015): June

Informing the Design of Direct-to-Consumer Interactive Personal Genomics Reports

Informing the Design of Direct-to-Consumer Interactive Personal Genomics Reports

Informing the Design of Direct-to-Consumer Interactive Personal Genomics Reports

Authors of this article:

Orit Shaer1 Author Orcid Image ;   Oded Nov2 Author Orcid Image ;   Johanna Okerlund1 Author Orcid Image ;   Martina Balestra2 Author Orcid Image ;   Elizabeth Stowell1 Author Orcid Image ;   Laura Ascher1 Author Orcid Image ;   Joanna Bi1 Author Orcid Image ;   Claire Schlenker1 Author Orcid Image ;   Madeleine Ball3 Author Orcid Image
Article Authors Cited by (16) Tweetations (19) Metrics

Journals

  1. Thiebes S, Toussaint P, Ju J, Ahn J, Lyytinen K, Sunyaev A. Valuable Genomes: Taxonomy and Archetypes of Business Models in Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing. Journal of Medical Internet Research 2020;22(1):e14890 View
  2. Otiono J, Olaosebikan M, Shaer O, Nov O, Ball M. Understanding Users Information Needs and Collaborative Sensemaking of Microbiome Data. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 2019;3(CSCW):1 View
  3. Balestra M, Shaer O, Okerlund J, Westendorf L, Ball M, Nov O. Social Annotation Valence: The Impact on Online Informed Consent Beliefs and Behavior. Journal of Medical Internet Research 2016;18(7):e197 View
  4. Créquit P, Mansouri G, Benchoufi M, Vivot A, Ravaud P. Mapping of Crowdsourcing in Health: Systematic Review. Journal of Medical Internet Research 2018;20(5):e187 View
  5. Haga S. Educating Patients and Providers Through Comprehensive Pharmacogenetic Test Reports. Pharmacogenomics 2017;18(11):1047 View
  6. Recchia G, Chiappi A, Chandratillake G, Raymond L, Freeman A. Creating genetic reports that are understood by nonspecialists: a case study. Genetics in Medicine 2020;22(2):353 View
  7. Farmer G, Gray H, Chandratillake G, Raymond F, Freeman A. Recommendations for designing genetic test reports to be understood by patients and non-specialists. European Journal of Human Genetics 2020;28(7):885 View
  8. Hay J, Berwick M, Zielaskowski K, White K, Rodríguez V, Robers E, Guest D, Sussman A, Talamantes Y, Schwartz M, Greb J, Bigney J, Kaphingst K, Hunley K, Buller D. Implementing an Internet-Delivered Skin Cancer Genetic Testing Intervention to Improve Sun Protection Behavior in a Diverse Population: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial. JMIR Research Protocols 2017;6(4):e52 View
  9. Wynn R, Adams K, Kowalski R, Shivega W, Ratwani R, Miller K. The Patient in Precision Medicine: A Systematic Review Examining Evaluations of Patient-Facing Materials. Journal of Healthcare Engineering 2018;2018:1 View
  10. Westendorf L, Shaer O, Pollalis C, Verish C, Nov O, Ball M. Exploring Genetic Data Across Individuals: Design and Evaluation of a Novel Comparative Report Tool. Journal of Medical Internet Research 2018;20(9):e10297 View
  11. Brett G, Ward A, Bouffler S, Palmer E, Boggs K, Lynch F, Springer A, Nisselle A, Stark Z. Co-design, implementation, and evaluation of plain language genomic test reports. npj Genomic Medicine 2022;7(1) View
  12. Recchia G, Lawrence A, Capacchione L, Freeman A. Making BRCA1 genetic test reports easier to understand through user-centered design: A randomized trial. Genetics in Medicine 2022;24(8):1684 View

Books/Policy Documents

  1. Yu H. Communicating Genetics. View
  2. Aday Curbelo Montañez C, Fergus P, Hussain A, Al-Jumeily D, Abdulaimma B, Al-Askar H. Intelligent Computing Theories and Application. View