Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21831495›Full record

ArticleSocial science & medicine (1982)2011

What's at stake? Genetic information from the perspective of people with epilepsy and their family members.

Sara Shostak, Dana Zarhin, Ruth Ottman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Social science & medicine (1982), 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Personal utility in genomic testing: a systematic literature review.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2017
    Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Patient Perspectives on Psychiatric Polygenic Risk Scores in Reproductive Decision-Making and Polygenic Embryo Screening.American journal of medical genetics. Part B, Neuropsychiatric genetics : the official publication of the International Society of Psychiatric Genetics · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Responsibility, culpability, and parental views on genomic testing for seriously ill children.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2019
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Genetic Testing in Pediatric Epilepsy.Current neurology and neuroscience reports · 2017
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Sara ShostakBrandeis University, Department of Sociology, MS 071, Waltham, MA 02454-9110, USA. sshostak@brandeis.edu
Dana Zarhin
Ruth Ottman

Funding

Genetic Epidemiology of Seizure Disorders In RochesterR01NS043472 · NINDS · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI OTTMAN, RUTH · 2002 to 2006
$6.2M
GENETICS OF AD PARTIAL EPILEPSY WITH AUDITORY FEATURESR01NS036319 · NINDS · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI OTTMAN, RUTH · 1997 to 2007
$3.7M
NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS036319NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS043472
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Substantial progress has been made in identifying genes that raise risk for epilepsy, and genetic testing for some of these genes is increasingly being used in clinical practice. However, almost no empirical data are available from the perspective of people with epilepsy and their family members about the impact of genetic information and potential benefits and harms of genetic testing. To address this gap we conducted in-depth qualitative interviews with 40 individuals (22 with epilepsy, 18 unaffected) in the USA from families containing multiple affected individuals who had participated in epilepsy genetics research. The interviews were coded and analyzed using the principles of grounded theory. Several major themes emerged from these interviews. Participants expressed "personal theories of inheritance" that emphasized commonalities among relatives and the idea that disease risk is most shared by family members who share physical or personality traits. Most participants said they would have genetic testing if it were offered. They cited many potential benefits, including learning what caused epilepsy in their family, being better able to care and advocate for children at risk, reducing guilt and blame, providing an increased sense of control, and relieving anxiety in unaffected individuals who test negative. The influence of genetic information on reproduction was a particularly salient theme. Although respondents believed genetic testing would be useful for informing their reproductive choices, they also expressed fear that it could lead to external pressures to modify these choices. Other concerns about the potential negative impact of genetic information included increased blame and guilt, increased stigma and discrimination in employment and insurance, self-imposed limitations on life goals, and alterations in fundamental conceptions of "what epilepsy is." Consideration of the perspectives of people with epilepsy and their family members is critical to understanding the implications of contemporary epilepsy genetic research and testing.

Indexed as

Genetic Predisposition to DiseaseHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeAdolescentAdultAttitude to HealthEpilepsyFamilyFemaleGenetic TestingHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle AgedUnited StatesYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID21831495
PMCPMC3163050

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.