ArticleInternational archives of occupational and environmental health2013
Ethical issues of genetic susceptibility testing for occupational diseases: opinions of trainees in a high-risk job.
Article in International archives of occupational and environmental health, 2013. 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.
- Consanguineous marriages in the genetic counseling centers of Isfahan and the ethical issues of clinical consultations.Journal of medical ethics and history of medicine · 2017Article
- Ethical challenges in teaching genetics for medical students.Journal of microbiology & biology education · 2014Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeGenetic research has opened up possibilities for identification of persons with an increased susceptibility for occupational disease. However, regulations considering the ethical issues that are inevitably associated with the use of genetic tests for susceptibility for occupational diseases are scarce. We investigated whether opinions of an intended stakeholder group, that is, student nurses, are sufficiently addressed by existing recommendations.
methodsAttitudes and opinions of Dutch student nurses toward a genetic test for susceptibility to occupational contact eczema were studied in a qualitative setup using focus groups, interviews and electronic questionnaires. The results were compared with guidelines and recommendations extracted from the literature.
resultsSixty-nine percent of the student nurses said they would partake in a genetic test for susceptibility to occupational contact eczema when available. Concerns were expressed regarding the difficulty of interpreting test results, the utility of the test result in practice and the necessity of genetic tests for non-severe diseases. For the issue of privacy and confidentiality, the students expressed few worries and much confidence. The existing guidelines largely covered the students' opinions. Still, the data emphasized the need for good individual risk communication both before and after testing, taking into account that the test concerns susceptibility.
conclusionsComparing the students' statements with the issues addressed by the guidelines, we conclude that the guidelines should pay more attention to risk communication and practical advice accompanying the test results.
Indexed as
Identifiers
23007313What 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.