ArticleBMC medical genomics2018
Clinical providers' experiences with returning results from genomic sequencing: an interview study.
Article in BMC medical genomics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
47 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Return of individual research results from genomic research: A systematic review of stakeholder perspectives.PloS one · 2021Pooled it
- The relationship between uncertainty and trust in genomic medicine and research: A literature review and thematic analysis.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2026Review
- Enhancing Parents' Experiences of Paediatric Genomic Testing in Usual Outpatient Care: Insights From a Multi-Perspective Qualitative Study.Journal of paediatrics and child health · 2026Article
- Recommendations for return of secondary genomic findings in observational cohort studies.Nature genetics · 2026Review
- Parent/caregiver needs during pediatric genome-wide sequencing: A scoping literature review.Journal of genetic counseling · 2026Article
- Community perspectives on the return of research results and ownership of data and specimens for brain tumor genomic research.SSM. Qualitative research in health · 2026Article
- Assessment of the adequacy of the Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR) Genomics standard for the representation of somatic testing reports.JAMIA open · 2026Article
- Challenges associated with disclosing results from whole genome sequencing to diagnose paediatric rare diseases: analysis of parent-clinician interactions.Journal of medical genetics · 2026Article
- Global Perspectives on Managing Incidental and Secondary Findings in Genomic Testing: A Comprehensive Review of Policies, Implementation Challenges, and Stakeholder Perspectives.Annals of laboratory medicine · 2026Review
- How people undergoing genomic sequencing interpret and react to varied secondary findings with limited actionability.Personalized medicine · 2025Article
- What does a consent conversation for whole genome sequencing look like in the NHS Genomic Medicine Service? An observational study.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2025Observational
- Pediatric nephrologists' perspectives and clinical practices related to genetic testing and education.Pediatric nephrology (Berlin, Germany) · 2025Article
- Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications of Gene-Environment Interaction Research.Genetic epidemiology · 2025Review
- Written communication of whole genome sequencing results in the NHS Genomic Medicine Service: a multi-centre service evaluation.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2024Article
- Hope, but never expect? Comparing parents' pre- and post-disclosure attitudes toward return of results from diagnostic exome sequencing for their child.Molecular genetics & genomic medicine · 2024Article
- 'It's a nightmare': informed consent in paediatric genome-wide sequencing. A qualitative expert interview study from Germany and Switzerland.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2023Article
- Dealing with ambivalence in the practice of advanced genetic healthcare: towards an ethical choreography.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2023Article
- "Your cancer is no longer considered cancer": Psychological reactions to reclassification information and communication preferences.PEC innovation · 2023Article
- Introducing HL7 FHIR Genomics Operations: a developer-friendly approach to genomics-EHR integration.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2023Article
- The thorny complexities of visualization research for clinical settings: A case study from genomics.Frontiers in bioinformatics · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCurrent medical practice includes the application of genomic sequencing (GS) in clinical and research settings. Despite expanded use of this technology, the process of disclosure of genomic results to patients and research participants has not been thoroughly examined and there are no established best practices.
methodsWe conducted semi-structured interviews with 21 genetic and non-genetic clinicians returning results of GS as part of the NIH funded Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research (CSER) Consortium projects. Interviews focused on the logistics of sessions, participant/patient reactions and factors influencing them, how the sessions changed with experience, and resources and training recommended to return genomic results.
resultsThe length of preparation and disclosure sessions varied depending on the type and number of results and their implications. Internal and external databases, online resources and result review meetings were used to prepare. Respondents reported that participants' reactions were variable and ranged from enthusiasm and relief to confusion and disappointment. Factors influencing reactions were types of results, expectations and health status. A recurrent challenge was managing inflated expectations about GS. Other challenges included returning multiple, unanticipated and/or uncertain results and navigating a rare diagnosis. Methods to address these challenges included traditional genetic counseling techniques and modifying practice over time in order to provide anticipatory guidance and modulate expectations. Respondents made recommendations to improve access to genomic resources and genetic referrals to prepare future providers as the uptake of GS increases in both genetic and non-genetic settings.
conclusionsThese findings indicate that returning genomic results is similar to return of results in traditional genetic testing but is magnified by the additional complexity and potential uncertainty of the results. Managing patient expectations, initially identified in studies of informed consent, remains an ongoing challenge and highlights the need to address this issue throughout the testing process. The results of this study will help to guide future providers in the disclosure of genomic results and highlight educational needs and resources necessary to prepare providers. Future research on the patient experience, understanding and follow-up of recommendations is needed to more fully understand the disclosure process.
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.