ArticleEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2016
A qualitative study to explore how professionals in the United Kingdom make decisions to test children for a sickle cell carrier status.
Article in European journal of human genetics : EJHG, 2016. 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.
- Cascade counselling and testing. Recommendations of the European Society of Human Genetics.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2026Article
- The current state of sickle cell trait: implications for reproductive and genetic counseling.Hematology. American Society of Hematology. Education Program · 2018Review
- The current state of sickle cell trait: implications for reproductive and genetic counseling.Blood · 2018Review
- "They Just Want to Know" - Genetic Health Professionals' Beliefs About Why Parents Want to Know their Child's Carrier Status.Journal of genetic counseling · 2017Article
- Predictive Genetic Testing of Children for Adult-Onset Conditions: Negotiating Requests with Parents.Journal of genetic counseling · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
European guidelines recommend that, unless there are clear benefits of autosomal recessive carrier testing in childhood, it should be deferred to protect children's autonomous decision making. Although it is believed that children receive testing in the United Kingdom, it is unclear how or why professionals make decisions to provide tests. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 25 professionals in the United Kingdom who advise about, and undertake, childhood sickle cell trait testing. Data were analysed using thematic analysis. Few professionals were aware of, or used, guidelines to inform testing decisions and instead, considered the reproductive and clinical relevance of testing, and autonomous rights of parents. Many professionals believed testing was important and readily offered it to parents. Professionals who discouraged testing were met with parental resistance and often provided testing when conflict was difficult to manage. Children were rarely considered to be capable of making decisions and few were engaged in discussions. When consulted, older children demonstrated interest, but younger children usually declined testing. Wide variation in testing advice emerged because of opposing beliefs about children's best interests and potential benefits or harms of testing. An explanation of how children's best interests should be determined in light of conflicting evidence regarding the psychosocial and clinical implications of carrier status is needed. Improved awareness of guidelines might encourage professionals to support the role of children in testing decisions. Strategies are also required to help professionals determine children's cognitive capacity and to protect children's future autonomy during discussions with persistent parents.
Indexed as
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.