ArticleJournal of community genetics2016
Swedish healthcare providers' perceptions of preconception expanded carrier screening (ECS)-a qualitative study.
Article in Journal of community genetics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Attitudes of professional stakeholders towards implementation of reproductive genetic carrier screening: a systematic review.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2023Pooled it
- Health practitioners' perceptions of the barriers and enablers to the implementation of reproductive genetic carrier screening: A systematic review.Prenatal diagnosis · 2021Pooled it
- Routes to expanded carrier screening in the UK: The perspectives of professional stakeholders.Journal of community genetics · 2026Article
- Patient and health care practitioner experiences and perspectives on expanded carrier screening: A scoping review.Genetics in medicine open · 2026Review
- Perceptions of severity and their influence on reproductive decision-making following reproductive genetic carrier screening.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2025Article
- Review
- The more you do it, the easier it gets: using behaviour change theory to support health care professionals offering reproductive genetic carrier screening.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2023Article
- Societal implications of expanded universal carrier screening: a scoping review.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2023Article
- Autonomous decisions by couples in reproductive care.BMC medical ethics · 2020Article
- The evolving landscape of expanded carrier screening: challenges and opportunities.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2019Review
- "A perfect society"- Swedish policymakers' ethical and social views on preconception expanded carrier screening.Journal of community genetics · 2019Article
- Stakeholder perspectives on the implementation of genetic carrier screening in a changing landscape.BMC health services research · 2017Article
- Outcomes of an International Workshop on Preconception Expanded Carrier Screening: Some Considerations for Governments.Frontiers in public health · 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
Reproductive autonomy, medicalization, and discrimination against disabled and parental responsibility are the main ongoing ethical debates concerning reproductive genetic screening. To examine Swedish healthcare professionals' views on preconception expanded carrier screening (ECS), a qualitative study involving academic and clinical institutions in Sweden was conducted in September 2014 to February 2015. Eleven healthcare professionals including clinicians, geneticists, a midwife, and a genetic counselor were interviewed in depth using a semi-structured interview guide. The questionnaire was constructed after reviewing the main literature and meetings with relevant healthcare providers. The interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and content analyzed for categories and subcategories. Participants nurtured many ethical and non-ethical concerns regarding preconception ECS. Among the ethical concerns were the potential for discrimination, medicalization, concerns with prioritization of healthcare resources, and effects on reproductive freedom. The effects of implementation of preconception ECS, its stakeholders, regulations, and motivation are some of non-ethical concerns. These concerns, if not addressed, may affect the uptake and usage of carrier screening within Swedish healthcare system. As this is a qualitative study with a small non-random sample size, the findings cannot be generalized. The participants had little to no working experience with expanded screening panels. Moreover, the interviews were conducted in English, a second language for the participants, which might have limited the expression of their views. However, the authors claim that the findings may be pertinent to similar settings in other Scandinavian countries.
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.