Adoptees' experiences of using direct‐to‐consumer genetic testing and determinants of this use: A mixed study in Quebec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adoptees' use of direct-to-consumer genetic testing (DTC-GT) is known to raise both ethical and emotional issues, and it can also challenge their identity. The objective of the present study was to describe the experiences of DTC-GT use among adoptees living in Quebec and to better understand the benefits and disadvantages of use. We adopted a mixed method approach whereby a questionnaire comprising standardized scales was administered to 143 adoptees who had used genetic testing and 40 adoptees who had not. Semi-structured interviews were performed with five respondents from the DTC-GT use group. The quantitative and qualitative data were analyzed and integrated together using the Pillar Integration Process. The results highlighted familial reunion as the primary motivation for the use of DTC-GT among responding adoptees. Reported challenges included needing help with results interpretation, as well as the need for autonomy in the ownership of the results. Participants describe not being particularly concerned by potential ethical issues, describing the benefits of the tests as more important than possible disadvantages. Overall, participants had a good experience of using DTC-GT, and users were less anxious. Various factors associated with the use and experience of use were highlighted (age, psychological distress, community membership, etc.). The results from this study provide much-needed information about adoptees' needs regarding DTC-GT, highlight key risk factors, and introduces best practice recommendations so that adoptees are properly informed and supported when pursuing DTC-GT.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".