Table 2.

Citizens' knowledge and educational needs in the field of omics sciences (where investigated).

References	Awareness and knowledge about genomics/omics sciences	Factors affecting knowledge	Request or need for more education/information regarding genomics/omics sciences by the population
Skirton et al. (2006)	Very low. Participants were largely unsure about the underlying scientific basis of genetics.	–	Participants were keen to learn more.
Calsbeek et al. (2007)	Low, heterogeneous. Better knowledge on association between genes and diseases. Perceived knowledge about genetic testing did not increase from 2002 to 2004.	–	–
Goddard et al. (2007)	Low. 14% of participants aware of DTC nutrigenomics tests; 15% aware of pharmacogenetic tests; 30% aware of genetic tests to assess disease risk; 38% aware of genetic tests to diagnose diseases. Main sources of information on DTC nutrigenetic tests: television (46%), magazine (35%), newspapers (29%).	–	–
Morren et al. (2007)	Low. Most of the respondents reported having poor knowledge of genetics (about 10% reported having knowledge about it, while half to three quarters indicated that they had no knowledge on the topic).	–	–
Ishiyama et al. (2008)	Low, heterogeneous. Extremely variable level of knowledge and understanding (the percentage of correct answers varies between 12.7% and 71.9% depending on the question). Most of participants approve the promotion of genomics studies.	–	–
Goddard et al. (2009)	Low. Estimates of awareness about direct-to-consumer nutrigenomics test ranged from 7.6% in Michigan to 24.4% in Oregon.	–	–
Molster et al. (2009)	Low. 46% said they knew very little about human genes and health.	–	–
Morin (2009)	Low. Limited knowledge about current nutrigenomics practices.	–	More public education on nutrigenomics needed.
Gleason et al. (2010)	Low, heterogeneous. Before the course, Biology teachers had better knowledge, while English ones very poor knowledge. After the course, participants showed significant improvements in knowledge about genetics and the Human Genome Project.	–	–
Hahn et al. (2010)	Low. Most participants never even heard the term “genomics medicine.” Most were unfamiliar with the term “personalized medicine.”	–	Willingness to know more about specific diseases, use in research, cloning and genetic engineering.
Lemke et al. (2010)	Low, heterogeneous. Variable and scarce knowledge on genomics research: in most cases participants associated genetic research only with diseases, few knew of basic research.	–	Willingness to receive more information on genetic research, as it was considered important for reducing fears and increasing confidence. It is important to increase awareness in isolated groups (low income, minorities), young people, schools, neighborhoods and disease support groups. Suggested strategy was to target populations at greater risk for a given condition than the general population. Other proposed strategies were information via evening TV news, internet, focus groups.
Mai et al. (2011)	Moderate. Most of participants were aware of simple concepts of general genetics and genetic testing.	Poorer knowledge with increasing age and in small towns compared to cities.	–
Smerecnik et al. (2011)	Low. 17.9% said they heard of genetic risk factors for multifactorial diseases.	–	–
Dijkstra et al. (2012)	Low. Poor knowledge about genomics research (24.2% never read information on genomics research, 54.1% sometimes).	–	Most of participants never searched for information about genomics research (71.4% never searched for information on the internet or library).
East et al. (2012)	Low/very low before the course. Course led to a significant improvement of perceived knowledge	–	Participants reported a high likelihood for continued self-learning after the course.
Kaphingst et al. (2012)	Heterogeneous. Level of knowledge on limits and benefits of sequencing was very variable before starting the study. Knowledge increased significantly from pre to post informed consent.	Level of knowledge related to the level of education.	–
Kolor et al. (2012)	Heterogeneous. DTC-GT awareness ranged from 15.8% in Michigan to 29.1% in Oregon. The most commonly cited source from which respondents read or heard of DTC-GTs was, in descending order, TV or radio, newspaper/magazine and Internet.	–	–
Nielsen and El-Sohemy (2012)	Low. Fifty-two percentage said they had not heard “anything” about DTC genetic testing.	–	–
Bombard et al. (2013)	–	–	Participants called for increased public awareness about personalized medicine to increase confidence and use of new technologies, in addition to counseling services.
Haga et al. (2013)	Moderate. Participants scored significantly higher on questions related to heredity and causes of diseases (average score of 94.6%) compared to questions on genes, chromosomes and cells (average score of 78.6%). Most of participants (79%) said they had some knowledge of the medical applications of genetics.	–	–
Henneman et al. (2013)	Low. Awareness about genetic testing and genetic diseases did not change between 2002 and 2010.	–	–
Almeling (2014)	Low. About a fifth of respondents heard of companies selling genetic tests directly to consumers.	–	–
Borzekowski et al. (2014)	Low. Less than 10% knew the average risk of breast cancer in the general population and the fraction of breast cancers due to BRCA mutations.	Knowledge of Angelina Jolie's story was not associated with better understanding.	–
Waters et al. (2014)	Moderate-high. Most of participants (64.2–78.6%) reported awareness of the multifactorial etiopathogenesis of diseases.	–	–
Abrams et al. (2015)	Moderate. Participants were “somewhat familiar” with genomics terms presented. Average score in the assessment of skills resulted 4 out of 6 correct answers, while on average participants correctly identified 8 out of 16 facts.	Level of knowledge related to the level of education.	–
Dodson et al. (2015)	Moderate. About 58.6% of respondents expressed some interest in whole genome sequencing, especially in those who expressed interest in having a child in the next 5 years.	–	–
Etchegary et al. (2015)	Low/very low. Many participants noted they lacked knowledge about genetics and associated research.	–	Participants reported the necessity for accurate information to make informed decisions both about genetic testing and participation in genetics research.
Kaphingst et al. (2015)	–	–	Strong interest in receiving a genomics evaluation for reference diseases (diabetes/heart disease), in discussing genomics information with family members and a doctor, and in modifying lifestyle in relation to genomics information.
Mavroidopoulou et al. (2015)	Low. 43.7% of the participants had the perception of being lacking in basic knowledge of genetics, unlike 34.5% who believed they knew enough.	–	–
Kaphingst et al. (2016)	Moderate. On average, participants answered 3 out of 5 questions regarding genomics correctly.	Poorer knowledge in the elderly than in the youth.	–
Mählmann et al. (2016)	Low. One third of respondents reported having heard of personal genetic tests.	–	–
Miyamoto et al. (2016)	Moderate. Adopted scale and frequency of participants in each group: “High” level of knowledge: understanding of the terms genome and gene or understanding of the term “gene” and having heard of “genome” = 30.2%; “Medium” level: having heard of both terms or understanding the term “gene” and having never heard of “genome” = 35.7%; “Low” knowledge consisted of having heard of “gene” and not of “genome” or of never having heard of both terms = 34.1%.	–	–
Schmidlen et al. (2016)	Moderate-high. Average genetic knowledge score among participants: 76%.	Higher level of knowledge in those who had previous experiences in genetic education (genetics courses, website consultations and reading of books and/or articles).	–
Simonstein and Mashiach-Eizenberg (2016)	Low. Most participants did not understand basic level questions in the general understanding of genetics section. 47.6% correct answers in the general understanding section of genetics. 74.9% correct answers in the genetic risk section.	–	–
Waters et al. (2016)	Moderate. Participants had relatively high previous experience with cancer, through family history (66.5%) or awareness about DTC genetic tests (51.1%).	–	–
Ahmed et al. (2017)	Low. However, Science Café model led to a change in participants' perceived literacy level.	Individuals with middle or high socioeconomic status perceived a greater change, while a level of education beyond high school was associated with greater difficulty in increasing literacy.	–
Krakow et al. (2017)	Moderate, referred to genetic tests. 57% of participants were aware of genetic tests.	–	–
Waters et al. (2017)	Low. Beliefs were not always consistent with biomedical explanations about the relationship between genes and addiction.	–	–
Fournier and Poulain (2018)	–	–	Many doubts about nutrigenetic tests and, therefore, a need for information on regulation, scientific evidence, medical support, and costs/economy was expressed.
Metcalfe et al. (2018)	Low. Knowledge about personal genomics tests was poor, but most participants could guess what the term “personal genomics” could imply. A minority had heard the term “direct-to-consumer test.”	–	–
Horrow et al. (2019)	High. Mean score in the genomic knowledge (knowledge of sequencing limitations and potential benefits) was 8.1 out of 11.00.	–	–
Jones et al. (2019)	Low. 6.8% of participants reported no knowledge of genetics, 34.4% little, 36.2% middling, 14.6% good, and 6.8% very good.	–	–
Rebitschek et al. (2019)	–	–	Study participants wanted to understand how the epigenetic approach is different from established genomics tests, how epigenetic changes relate to cancer, and whether the test enables monitoring of one's cancer risk. Furthermore, they wanted to know more about basic cancer risks and information after epigenetic testing about non-invasive preventive options regarding both health care and preventive behavior.