ArticleFamilial cancer2018
How do clinical genetics consent forms address the familial approach to confidentiality and incidental findings? A mixed-methods study.
Article in Familial cancer, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploring experts' views on "Not Parent Expected" discoveries via direct-to-consumer DNA ancestry testing.BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
- Healthcare provider-mediated cascade testing of Lynch syndrome to at-risk family members: an interview study.Familial cancer · 2025Article
- Perspectives and experiences of researchers regarding feedback of incidental genomic research findings: A qualitative study.PloS one · 2022Article
- Shortened consent forms for genome-wide sequencing: Parent and provider perspectives.Molecular genetics & genomic medicine · 2020Article
- Article
- Tensions in ethics and policy created by National Precision Medicine Programs.Human genomics · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Genetic test results can be relevant to patients and their relatives. Questions thus arise around whether clinicians regard genetic information as confidential to individuals or to families, and about how they broach this and other issues, including the potential for incidental findings, in consent (forms) for genetic testing. We conducted a content analysis of UK-wide genetic testing consent forms and interviewed 128 clinicians/laboratory scientists. We found that almost all genetic services offered patients multiple, sometimes unworkable, choices on forms, including an option to veto the use of familial genetic information to benefit relatives. Participants worried that documented choices were overriding professional judgement and cautioned against any future forms dictating practice around incidental findings. We conclude that 'tick-box' forms, which do little to enhance autonomy, are masking valid consent processes in clinical practice. As genome-wide testing becomes commonplace, we must re-consider consent processes, so that they protects patients'-and relatives'-interests.
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.