Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23086468›Full record

ArticleJournal of community genetics2013

Examining the family-centred approach to genetic testing and counselling among UK Pakistanis: a community perspective.

A Darr, N Small, W I U Ahmad, K Atkin, P Corry, J Benson, R Morton, B Modell

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of community genetics, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing 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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
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

8 authors.

A DarrSchool of Health Studies, University of Bradford, Richmond Rd, Bradford, BD7 1DP, UK, a.r.darr@bradford.ac.uk.
N Small
W I U Ahmad
K Atkin
P Corry
J Benson
R Morton
B Modell

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

WHO advice suggests a family-centred approach for managing the elevated risk of recessively inherited disorders in consanguineous communities, whilst emerging policy recommends community engagement as an integral component of genetic service development. This paper explores the feasibility of the family-centred approach in the UK Pakistani origin community. The study took place within a context of debate in the media, professional and lay circles about cousin marriage causing disability in children. Using qualitative methods, a total of six single-sex focus group discussions (n = 50) were conducted in three UK cities with a high settlement of people of Pakistani origin. Tape-recorded transcripts were analysed using framework analysis. Kinship networks within Pakistani origin communities are being sustained and marriage between close blood relatives continues to take place alongside other marriage options. Study participants were critical of what was perceived as a prevalent notion that cousin marriage causes disability in children. They were willing to discuss cousin marriage and disability, share genetic information and engage with genetic issues. A desire for accurate information and a public informed about genetic issues was articulated whilst ineffective communication of genetic risk information undermined professionals in their support role. This study suggests a community that is embracing change, one in which kinship networks are still active and genetic information exchange is taking place. At the community level, these are conditions supportive of the family-centred approach to genetic testing and counselling.

Identifiers

PMID23086468
PMCPMC3537968

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.