ArticleJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics2019
Expanded genetic carrier screening in clinical practice: a current survey of patient impressions and attitudes.
Article in Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 39 citations in OpenAlex.
- Scoping review and recommendations for development and delivery of education resources for reproductive genetic carrier screening.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2026Review
- Psychosocial outcomes of reproductive genetic carrier screening up to five years post-result.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2026Article
- Practice patterns for expanded carrier screening among reproductive endocrinology and infertility physicians.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2026Article
- MLDP-AS: an optimized next-generation sequencing assay for enhanced detection of technically challenging variants in expanded carrier screening.Journal of translational medicine · 2026Article
- Patient and health care practitioner experiences and perspectives on expanded carrier screening: A scoping review.Genetics in medicine open · 2026Review
- Perceived utility of genetic carrier screening in a diverse patient population.Journal of genetic counseling · 2025Article
- Clinical experience of the expanded carrier screening for recessive genetic diseases in a large cohort study in Southern central China.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Pregnant couples' attitude toward extended pre-conceptional genomic screening.Croatian medical journal · 2024Article
- Exploring attitudes and experiences with reproductive genetic carrier screening among couples seeking medically assisted reproduction: a longitudinal survey study.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2024Article
- Preconception Expanded Carrier Screening: A Discourse Analysis of Dutch Webpages.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- A capillary electrophoresis-based multiplex PCR assay for expanded carrier screening in the eastern Han Chinese population.NPJ genomic medicine · 2022Article
- Couples' experiences with expanded carrier screening: evaluation of a university hospital screening offer.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2021Article
- Article
- Current attitudes and preconceptions towards expanded carrier screening in the Eastern Chinese reproductive-aged population.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeExpanded genetic carrier screening (ECS) is an important part of gynecological practice and preconception planning. We evaluated the awareness and attitudes among women regarding ECS and factors that may influence decision-making in a family planning context.
methodsA 32-question survey in an academic university practice was given to 521 women who were either currently pregnant (n = 108), undergoing gynecologic care who were considering future fertility (n = 308), and considering or receiving fertility treatment (n = 105). Data are reported descriptively.
resultsForty-seven percent (n = 246) of patients were aware of ECS. Though most reported feeling positive or neutral towards ECS, 51% (n = 263) reported no desire for testing. Fifty-eight percent (n = 303) felt it beneficial to know their carrier status, and 55% (n = 257) said it was their responsibility to undergo testing. Those considering future fertility were found to have a more positive attitude towards ECS (51.4%) than those considering or receiving fertility treatment (34%). For positive carriers of a genetic disorder, 228 (49%) of patients would proceed with having their partner screened, 58 (13%) would undergo prenatal screening only and 12 (2.6%) would continue with vitro fertilization (IVF). Related to cost for ECS, 53.5% (n = 191) would be willing to pay at least $50-100 for testing, while 29% (n = 146) would not pay anything out of pocket.
conclusionsDespite patients' beliefs that it would be beneficial and their responsibility to undergo carrier status testing, the majority reported no desire for ECS and many were unwilling to pay out of pocket. Further education is necessary to reconcile the gap between technology and patient decision-making.
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.