ArticleJournal of community genetics2015
Evaluation of two-year Jewish genetic disease screening program in Atlanta: insight into community genetic screening approaches.
Article in Journal of community genetics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Regionally enriched rare deleterious exonic variants in the UK and Ireland.Nature communications · 2024Article
- A collaborative genetic carrier screening model for the British Ashkenazi Jewish community.Journal of community genetics · 2022Article
- Expanded universal carrier screening and its implementation within a publicly funded healthcare service.Journal of community genetics · 2020Review
- Preconception carrier screening for multiple disorders: evaluation of a screening offer in a Dutch founder population.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2018Article
- Pre- and post-testing counseling considerations for the provision of expanded carrier screening: exploration of European geneticists' views.BMC medical ethics · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Improvements in genetic testing technologies have led to the development of expanded carrier screening panels for the Ashkenazi Jewish population; however, there are major inconsistencies in current screening practices. A 2-year pilot program was launched in Atlanta in 2010 to promote and facilitate screening for 19 Jewish genetic diseases. We analyzed data from this program, including participant demographics and outreach efforts. This retrospective analysis is based on a de-identified dataset of 724 screenees. Data were obtained through medical chart review and questionnaires and included demographic information, screening results, response to outreach efforts, and follow-up behavior and preferences. We applied descriptive analysis, chi-square tests, and logistic regression to analyze the data and compare findings with published literature. The majority of participants indicated that they were not pregnant or did not have a partner who was pregnant were affiliated with Jewish organizations and reported 100 % AJ ancestry. Overall, carrier frequency was 1 in 3.9. Friends, rabbis, and family members were the most common influencers of the decision to receive screening. People who were older, had a history of pregnancy, and had been previously screened were more likely to educate others (all p < 0.05). Analysis of this 2-year program indicated that people who are ready to have children or expand their families are more likely to get screened and encourage others to be screened. The most effective outreach efforts targeted influencers who then encouraged screening in the target population. Educating influencers and increasing overall awareness were the most effective outreach strategies.
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.