ArticleMolecular genetics & genomic medicine2019
Canadian genetic healthcare professionals' attitudes towards discussing private pay options with patients.
Article in Molecular genetics & genomic medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Healthcare professionals' perspectives on and experiences with non-invasive prenatal testing: a systematic review.Human genetics · 2025Pooled it
- Canadian genetic healthcare professionals' attitudes towards discussing private pay options with patients.Molecular genetics & genomic medicine · 2019Article
- Assessing the Ethical Considerations in the Era of Advanced Prenatal Testing and Genetic Counselling - Clinicians' Perspective.Indian journal of community medicine : official publication of Indian Association of Preventive & Social MedicineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundJust as there is inconsistency with respect to coverage of genomic testing with insurance carriers, there is interprovincial discrepancy in Canada. Consequently, the option of private pay (e.g., self pay) arises, which can lead to inequities in access, particularly when patients may not be aware of this option. There are currently no published data regarding how the Canadian genetics community handles discussions of private pay options with patients. The purpose of this study was to assess the attitudes of genetic healthcare professionals (GHPs: medical geneticists, genetic counselors, and genetic nurses) practicing in Canada toward these discussions.
methodsAn online survey was distributed to members of the Canadian College of Medical Geneticists and the Canadian Association of Genetic Counsellors to assess frequencies, rationale, and ethical considerations regarding these conversations. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics.
resultsOf 144 respondents, 95% reported discussing private pay and 65% reported working in a clinic without a policy on this issue. There were geographic and practice-specific differences. The most common circumstance for these discussions was when a test was clinically indicated (e.g., but funding was denied) followed by when the patient initiated the conversation. The most frequently discussed tests included: multi-gene panels (73% of respondents), noninvasive prenatal testing (62%), and pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (58%). Although 65% felt it was ethical to discuss private pay, 35% indicated it was "sometimes" ethical.
conclusionWith the increasing availability of genomic technologies, these findings inform how we practice and demonstrate the need for policy in this area.
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.