Centre for Research Ethics & Bioethics (CRB)

Publications from Mind the Risk

Our general publishing strategy for the entirety of the project is to publish articles in
international peer reviewed journals in English. Given the multi-disciplinary nature of
the group, each partner will publish their results in appropriate journals for their
subject and audience. We encourage and support partners to publish in open access
journals and/or to make their publications available (even if only the proofs) via their
research group/university websites.

  • Mind the Risk | Making sense of genetic risk

  • Mind the Risk | What people think about online genetic testing

Published articles

Schaper M, Wöhlke S, Schicktanz S, “I would rather have it done by a doctor”—laypeople’s perceptions of direct-to-consumer genetic testing (DTC GT) and its ethical implications, Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 2018, DOI: 10.1007/s11019-018-9837-y

Schaper M, Schicktanz S, Medicine, Market and Communication: Ethical Considerations in Regard to Persuasive Communication in Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing Services. BMC Medical Ethics, 5 June 2018. 

Bayliss K, Raza K, Simons G, Falahee M, Hanson M, Starling B & Stack RJ, Perceptions of predictive testing for those at risk of developing chronic inflammatory disease: a meta-synthesis of qualitative studiesJournal of Risk Research, 2018;21(2):167-189. 

Falahee M, Simons G, Raza K & Stack RJ, Healthcare professionals’ perceptions of risk in the context of genetic testing for the prediction of chronic disease: A qualitative metasynthesis, Journal of Risk Research, 2018;21(2):129-166.

Falahee M., Simons G, Buckley CD, Hansson M., Stack RJ, & Raza Km, Patients' perceptions of their relatives' risk of developing rheumatoid arthritis and of the potential for risk communication, prediction and modulation, Arthritis Care & Research, published online 20 December 2016. 

Georgsson S, Sahlin E, Iwarsson, Nordenskjöld M, Gustavsson P & Iwarsson E. (2016). Knowledge and Attitudes Regarding Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT) and Preferences for Risk Information among High School Students in Sweden, Journal of Genetic Counseling, published online 2 August 2016.

Gorini A & Pravettoni G, Why do we pay for information that we won’t use? A cognitive-based explanation for genetic information seeking, European Journal of Human Genetics, published online 9 September 2015

Inthorn J, Genetic risk information, Journal of Risk Research, 2017;21(2):109-116.

Kalokairinou L, Howard HC, Borry P. Science and Regulation. Changes on the horizon for consumer genomics in the EU. Science 2014;346(6207):296-8.

Kihlbom U, Genetic Risk and Value, Journal of Risk Research, published online 1 July 1 2016.

Leefman J, Schaper M, Schicktanz S, The Concept of “Genetic Responsibility” and Its Meanings: A Systematic Review of Qualitative Medical Sociology Literature, Front. Sociol., published online 24 January 2017. 

Niemiec E, Borry P, Pinxten W, et al. Content Analysis of Informed Consent for Whole Genome Sequencing Offered by Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing Companies. Hum Mutat 2016;37(12):1248-56.

Niemiec E, Howard HC. Ethical issues in consumer genome sequencing: Use of consumers' samples and data. Appl Transl Genom 2016;8:23-30.

Oliveri S & Pravettoni G, Capturing how individuals perceive genetic risk information: a phenomenological perspective, Journal of Risk Research, 2018;21(2):259-267. 

Oliveri S & Pravettoni G, The disclosure of direct-to-consumer genetic testing: sounding out the psychological perspective of consumers, Biology and Medicine, 2016:8(5). 

Oliveri S, Howard HC, Renzi C, Hansson MG & Pravettoni G, Anxiety delivered direct-to-consumer: are we asking the right questions about the impacts of DTC genetic testing?, Journal of Medical Genetics, 2016;53(12):798-799.

Oliveri S, Masiero M, Arnaboldi P, Cutica I, Fioretti C, & Pravettoni G, Health Orientation, Knowledge, and Attitudes toward Genetic Testing and Personalized Genomic Services: Preliminary Data from an Italian Sample. BioMed Research International, published online 12 December 2016.

Oliveri S, Pravettoni G, Fioretti C, & Hansson MG, Let the individuals directly concerned decide: a solution to tragic choices in genetic risk information, Public Health Genomics, 2016;19(5):307-313.

Oliveri S, Renzi C, & Pravettoni G, Toward an in-depth profiling of DTC usersClinical genetics, 2015;88(5):505-506.

Oliveri S, Renzi C, Masiero M, & Pravettoni G, Living at risk: factors that affect the experience of direct-to-consumer genetic testingMayo Clin Proc, October 2015;90(10):1323-1326.

Perry J, Wöhlke S, Hessling AC, Schicktanz S, Why take part in personalised cancer research? Patients’ genetic misconception, genetic responsibility and incomprehension of stratification—an empirical-ethical examination, European Journal of Cancer Care Online August 10 2016, 10.1111/ecc.12563. 

Sahlin, E., Nordenskjöld, M., Gustavsson, P.,Wincent, J., Georgsson, S,† & Erik Iwarsson† †) (2016). † These authors contributed equally as senior authors to this work, Positive attitudes towards non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) in a Swedish cohort of 1,003 pregnant womenPLOS ONE, published online 19 May 2016.

Schicktanz S, Genetic risk and responsibility: reflections on a complex relationship, Journal of Risk Research, 2016:1-23.

Stack R, Stoffer M, Englbrecht M, Mosor E, Falahee M, Simons G, Smolen J, Schett G, Buckley C, Kumar K, Hansson M, Hueber A, Stamm T and Raza K, Perceptions of first degree relatives of patients with rheumatoid arthritis about their personal risk of, and predictive testing for, rheumatoid arthritis: a cross-European qualitative study, BMJ Open, 2016;6(6): e010555

Vass CR, D.; Payne, K. . The Role of Qualitative Research Methods in Discrete Choice Experiments: A Systematic Review and Survey to Authors. Medical Decision Making 2017;37(3):298-313.

Vass C, Gray E, Payne K. Discrete choice experiments of pharmacy services: a systematic review. Int J Clin Pharm 2016;38(3):620-30.

Viberg Johansson J, Segerdahl P, Höstery Ugander U, Hansson MG, Langenskiöld S, Making sense of genetic risk: a qualitative focus-group study of healthy participants in genomic research, Patient Education and counseling 2017, DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2017.09.009

Viberg J, Segerdahl P, Langenskiöld S, Hansson MG, Freedom of choice about incidental findings can frustrate participants’ true preferencesBioethics 2015, online: DOI: 10.1111/bioe.12160

Wöhlke S,  Perry J & Schicktanz S, Taking it Personally: Patients’ Perspectives on Personalised Medicine and its Ethical Relevance, In: Jochen Vollmann, Verena Sandow, Sebastian Wäscher, & Jan Schildmann (Eds.): Personalised Medicine: Ethical, Medical, Economic and Legal Critical Perspectives, ASHGATE, 2015 129-149. 2


Hansson S. Genetic risk assessment from an ethical point of view. Journal of Risk Research in press.

Howard HC, Iwarsson E. Mapping Uncertainty in Genomics. Journal of Risk Research in press.

Kihlbom U. Genetic Risk and Value. Journal of Risk Research in press.

Mainetti R, Oliveri S, Cutica I, Gorini A, Gaspardo S, Borghese N.A, Pravettoni,  Design, development and usability test of Serious Games related to genetics, IEEE SeGAH 2018 International Conference on Serious Games and Applications for Health, forthcoming (conference proceedings)

Middleton AM, Á.; Benjamin, C. M.; Howard, H. C., . Direct to consumer genetic testing - where and how does genetic counselling fit? . Personalized Medicine in press.

Oliveri S, Mainetti R, Gorini A, Cutica I, Candiani G, Borghese N.A, Pravettoni G, Serious games to improve genetic literacy and genetic risk awareness in the general public: protocol for usability and knowledge transfer efficacy, JMIR Research Protocols, 2017. Preprint: https://doi.org/10.2196/preprints.9288

Schaper M, Wöhlke S, Schicktanz S, “I would rather have it done by a doctor”—laypeople’s perceptions of direct-to-consumer genetic testing (DTC GT) and its ethical implications, Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 2018, DOI: 10.1007/s11019-018-9837-y

Vass C, Payne K. Using discrete choice experiments to inform the benefit-risk assessment of medicines: are we ready yet?. PharmacoEconomics in press.