ArticleJournal of community genetics2014
"To perpetuate blindness!": attitudes of UK patients with inherited retinal disease towards genetic testing.
Article in Journal of community genetics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Preimplantation genetic diagnosis for retinoblastoma survivors: a cost-effectiveness study.Reproductive biomedicine & society online · 2020Article
- Human genome editing and the identity politics of genetic disability.Journal of community genetics · 2020Article
- Preventing lives affected by hemophilia: A mixed methods study of the views of adults with hemophilia and their families toward genetic screening.Molecular genetics & genomic medicine · 2019Article
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 at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Availability and accuracy of genetic testing in ophthalmology has increased yet the benefits are unclear especially for those conditions where cure or treatments are limited. To explore attitudes to and patients' understanding of possible advantages and disadvantages of genetic testing for inherited retinal disease, we undertook focus groups in three West Yorkshire towns in the UK. Most of our participants had retinitis pigmentosa and one of the focus groups consisted of participants from (British) Asian ethnic background. Here, we report only those attitudes which were common in all three focus groups. Some of the attitudes have already been reported in the literature. Novel findings include attitudes held towards informed choice and life planning, particularly among more severely affected participants. For example, participants appreciated that genetic testing increases informed choice and enables life planning, but these understandings tended to be in a specific sense: informed choice whether to have children and family planning in order to prevent illness recurrence. We conclude that even though these patients are not a homogeneous group, their attitudes tend to be underpinned by deep anxiety of passing their visual impairment onto their children. In this respect, they differ importantly from a small minority of the deaf who would prefer to have children with hearing loss, and from the more general population who do not believe that blindness is a "severe" enough disability to warrant avoiding having children.
Identifiers
What 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.