Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28594415›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2017

Expanded carrier screening: what determines intended participation and can this be influenced by message framing and narrative information?

Jan S Voorwinden, Anne H Buitenhuis, Erwin Birnie, Anneke M Lucassen, Marian A Verkerk, Irene M van Langen, Mirjam Plantinga, Adelita V Ranchor

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of human genetics : EJHG, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Integrating stakeholder feedback in translational genomics research: an ethnographic analysis of a study protocol's evolution.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2020
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Jan S VoorwindenDepartment of Health Psychology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Anne H BuitenhuisDepartment of Health Psychology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Erwin BirnieDepartment of Genetics, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Anneke M LucassenDepartment of Clinical Ethics and Law, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Marian A VerkerkDepartment of Internal Medicine, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Irene M van LangenDepartment of Genetics, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Mirjam PlantingaDepartment of Genetics, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Adelita V RanchorDepartment of Health Psychology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Next-generation sequencing enabled us to create a population-based expanded carrier screening (ECS) test that simultaneously tests for 50 serious autosomal recessive diseases. Before offering this test universally, we wanted to know what factors are related to intended participation and how the general public can be informed about the test without being influenced in their intention to participate. We studied this by measuring to what extent 'message framing' and 'narrative information' can influence people's intended participation. Data were collected by means of an online survey of 504 potential users, and the factors examined were based on the Theory of Planned Behaviour and on previous research on intended participation in preconception carrier screening. Message framing was manipulated by explaining the risk of couple carriership in different ways, while narrative information was provided to only half of the respondents. The factors most positively related to intended participation were perceiving benefits of the screening, having a positive attitude towards the screening, having no religion, having an actual child wish and experiencing the choice to participate as easy. Perceived benefits and a positive attitude were most influential factors by far. Message framing and narrative information had no significant effect on intended participation, reinforcing that message framing and narrative information can help to inform the general public about ECS without influencing their intended participation. Future research should study if the importance of perceived benefits and a positive attitude can be replicated when other factors are included and when actual participation is measured instead of intended participation.

Indexed as

HeterozygotePatient Acceptance of Health CareAdolescentAdultFemaleGenetic CounselingGenetic TestingHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansMalePatient Education as Topic

Identifiers

PMID28594415
PMCPMC5520082

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.