ArticleJournal of genetic counseling2009
Are patient rights to information and self-determination in diagnostic genetic testing upheld? A comparison of patients' and providers' perceptions.
Article in Journal of genetic counseling, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Potential Uses and Inherent Challenges of Using Genome-Scale Sequencing to Augment Current Newborn Screening.Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in medicine · 2015Review
- Assessing knowledge of the patient bill of rights in central Saudi Arabia: a survey of primary health care providers and recipients.Annals of Saudi medicineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study assessed how the patient's right to receive information and the right to self-determination were followed during diagnostic testing, according to the perceptions of patients and parents of tested children (group 1, n = 106) and healthcare personnel (group 2, n = 162). Data were collected in three Finnish university hospitals using a questionnaire. Results revealed one between group difference: patients/parents agreed more strongly than did personnel that self-determination was followed before testing. Within groups included: patients/parents had stronger agreement that self-determination was followed before testing than after testing; personnel had stronger agreement about information received after testing than before testing, and they had weaker agreement about how well self-determination was followed before testing than after testing. Received information was experienced as similar both before and after testing and by patients/parents and by personnel. Providing adequate time to consider whether or not to be tested and giving more support to patients after testing would promote the rights of patients. Furthermore, assessment of personnel characteristics is needed to determine, for example, the kinds of value conflicts that exist between personnel's own values and patients' values.
Indexed as
Identifiers
18979191What 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.