ArticleJournal of community genetics2019
A comparative study of patients' perceptions of genetic and genomic medicine services in California and Malaysia.
Article in Journal of community genetics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A systematic review of geographical inequities for accessing clinical genomic and genetic services for non-cancer related rare disease.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2022Pooled it
- Current Status of Genetic Counselling for Rare Diseases in Spain.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Patients' and professionals' views related to ethical issues in precision medicine: a mixed research synthesis.BMC medical ethics · 2021Review
- Clinical implementation of an oncology-specific family health history risk assessment tool.Hereditary cancer in clinical practice · 2021Article
- Knowledge, Awareness, and Perception of Genetic Testing for Hereditary Disorders Among Malaysians in Klang Valley.Frontiers in genetics · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In the era of personalized and genomic medicine, awareness of patients with rare diseases is increasing as new approaches to diagnosis and treatment are developed. This study examined perceived barriers experienced by families with rare diseases and explored possible differences between participants in Malaysia and California, USA. The study involved N = 108 participants recruited in genetics clinic appointments at the University of Malaya Medical Center and three sites in Southern California. Participants completed a survey involving multiple choice and Likert scale items pertaining to perceived barriers to access genetics-related healthcare. Results from this study provide evidence of similar perceived barriers, despite differences in the two populations. Participants selected the expansion of healthcare provider knowledge of rare diseases to be the most beneficial approach to overcome perceived barriers. In both locations, it was also noted that travel distance to clinic was not perceived as a large stress factor. Taking these observations together, a healthcare model with a central location of providers well-versed in medical genetics may be considered if further data support our findings. The data from this study support a need for improving healthcare provider knowledge of genetics. Future studies exploring how these perceived stress factors are impacting families as well as different methods of educating providers are suggested by findings from the study, as well as studies querying the opinions of those who are unable to access genetics services.
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.