Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18758928›Full record

ArticleJournal of genetic counseling2008

Adolescent carrier testing in practice: the impact of legal rulings and problems with "gillick competence".

Paula Boddington, Maggie Gregory

Erratum issuedAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of genetic counseling, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Ethics of children's participation in a Saudi biobank: an exploratory survey.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2016
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Fragile X screening: attitudes of genetic health professionals.American journal of medical genetics. Part A · 2009
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

  • Erratum issued
5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Paula BoddingtonEthox Centre, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Oxford, Badenoch Building, Old Road Campus, Headington, Oxford, OX3 7LF, UK. paula.boddington@ethox.ox.ac.uk
Maggie Gregory

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Testing for carrier status for various genetic conditions often takes place during adolescence or young adulthood. This paper aims to add to the discussion of when is the best time to test through an examination of how the law on medical treatment of children appears to be used in practice and how a careful examination of legal rulings might shed light upon best practice in this area. Our focus is on the Gillick ruling (Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority 1986), which dealt with consent and confidentiality with respect to the provision of contraceptive advice to under 16-year-olds, but which has become a general benchmark for consent to medical treatment within UK law. In addition, we draw upon data from a qualitative research study which indicates potential problems with certain practices in respect of the influence of the Gillick ruling on carrier testing procedures. We present evidence that in at least some instances, adolescents have reduced capacity to grasp fully the implications of carrier test results. In the light of our findings we make recommendations for practice concerning the testing of children and young persons.

Indexed as

Genetic Carrier ScreeningAdolescentAdultComprehensionConfidentialityFemaleGenetic TestingHumansInformed ConsentMalePregnancyPuberty

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.