ArticleFamilial cancer2010
Evolving perspectives on genetic discrimination in health insurance among health care providers.
Article in Familial cancer, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Future implications of polygenic risk scores for life insurance underwriting.NPJ genomic medicine · 2024Review
- The persistent lack of knowledge and misunderstanding of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) more than a decade after passage.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2021Article
- Study protocol: the Australian genetics and life insurance moratorium-monitoring the effectiveness and response (A-GLIMMER) project.BMC medical ethics · 2021Article
- Massively Parallel Sequencing for Rare Genetic Disorders: Potential and Pitfalls.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2020Review
- Development and validation of the cancer self-perceived discrimination scale for Chinese cancer patients.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2018Article
- Breast Cancer Risk Estimation and Personal Insurance: A Qualitative Study Presenting Perspectives from Canadian Patients and Decision Makers.Frontiers in genetics · 2017Article
- Genetics and Personal Insurance: the Perspectives of Canadian Cancer Genetic Counselors.Journal of genetic counseling · 2015Article
- Public awareness of genetic nondiscrimination laws in four states and perceived importance of life insurance protections.Journal of genetic counseling · 2015Article
- "Would you test your children without their consent?" and other sticky dilemmas in the field of cancer genetic testing.Familial cancer · 2014Article
- Consumer awareness and attitudes about insurance discrimination post enactment of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act.Familial cancer · 2012Article
- Family physicians' awareness and knowledge of the Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act (GINA).Journal of genetic counseling · 2012Article
- Barriers to and motivations for physician referral of patients to cancer genetics clinics.Journal of genetic counseling · 2012Article
- Why is genetic screening for autosomal dominant disorders underused in families? The case of hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2011Article
- Personal genome testing: test characteristics to clarify the discourse on ethical, legal and societal issues.BMC medical ethics · 2011Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Previous studies have documented that concerns about genetic discrimination (GD) may influence access to and participation in medically necessary care. We sought to characterize how GD issues influence current cancer genetics professional (CGP) practice, determine if their attitudes regarding GD have changed over time, and compare their knowledge and attitudes regarding laws prohibiting GD to a contemporary cohort of non-genetics clinicians. Members of the National Society of Genetic Counselors Familial Cancer Special Interest Group were invited to complete a 39 item online survey, adapted from previously published instruments. The resulting data were compared to a survey of CGPs published in 2000 and to a contemporary cohort of non-genetics clinicians (n = 1,181). There were 153 qualified respondents. Compared to the historical CGP cohort (n = 163), a significantly greater proportion said they would bill insurance for the cost of genetic testing for themselves (P < 0.0001). Most CGPs (94%) considered the risk of GD to be low to theoretical, concordant with 64% who expressed confidence in existing federal laws prohibiting GD. The mean knowledge score of CGPs regarding GD protective laws was significantly greater than that of non-genetics clinicians (P < 0.001). As barometers of change, CGPs show a migration in opinion over the past 8 years, with decreased fear of GD and greater knowledge of laws prohibiting GD compared to non-genetics clinicians. Better knowledge of GD and protective legislation, may facilitate non-genetics clinician utilization of genetics and personalized medicine.
Indexed as
Identifiers
19967457What 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.