ArticleAmerican journal of public health2001
A seat at the table: membership in federal advisory committees evaluating public policy in genetics.
Article in American journal of public health, 2001. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Residual newborn screening samples for research: parental information needs for decision-making.Journal for specialists in pediatric nursing : JSPN · 2013Article
- Concerns of newborn blood screening advisory committee members regarding storage and use of residual newborn screening blood spots.American journal of public health · 2011Article
- Community involvement in developing policies for genetic testing: assessing the interests and experiences of individuals affected by genetic conditions.American journal of public health · 2005Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThis study examined who participates in federal government advisory committees regarding public policy in human and medical genetics, what parties they represent, and to what extent the general public is meaningfully represented.
methodsAnalysis focused on 7 federal government documents published from January 1990 to February 1995. Advisors were categorized into 4 groups based on the professional affiliations that were listed in the publications. After a search of several references and data-bases, the study examined whether these individuals also had other affiliations not listed in the government publications.
resultsIndividuals whose principal affiliations were with academia (n = 32; 44%) or industry (n = 19; 26%) represented nearly three fourths of the sample, followed by government employees (n = 13; 18%) and consumer advocates (n = 8; 11%). At least 16% of the advisors serving on the federal committees, mostly members of academia, had a dual affiliation.
conclusionsThese data indicate that the public has modest representation on key federal advisory committees making policy recommendations regarding human genetics technology and clinical practice and that there is ample room for additional public participation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.