ArticleEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2019
Comparative perspectives: regulating insurer use of genetic information.
Article in European journal of human genetics : EJHG, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- "Uninsurable because of a genetic test": a qualitative study of consumer views about the use of genetic test results in Australian life insurance.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2024Article
- Genomic-Based Newborn Screening for Inborn Errors of Immunity: Practical and Ethical Considerations.International journal of neonatal screening · 2023Article
- Personalized early detection and prevention of breast cancer: ENVISION consensus statement.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2020Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
Fear of genetic discrimination has led individuals worldwide to avoid medically recommended genetic testing and participation in genomics research, causing potential health effects as research and clinical care are stymied. In response, many countries have adopted policies that regulate how insurers, such as life, disability, or critical illness insurers, can underwrite using genetic test results. This article presents a comparison of policies in the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia, through analysis of interviews with 59 key stakeholders representing insurance, government, advocacy, academia, and genetics. While the ultimate policy of each country is different, the policy motivations and issues raised share commonalities across the countries, particularly around themes of fairness, usefulness of genetic information, and the determination of actuarial fairness.
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.