Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31296598›Full record

ArticleArchives of disease in childhood2020

Professionals' accounts of genetic testing in adoption: a qualitative study.

Michael Arribas-Ayllon, Angus Clarke, Katherine Shelton

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Archives of disease in childhood, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 24% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Michael Arribas-AyllonSchool of Social Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, Wales, UK.
Angus ClarkeMedical Genetics, University of Wales College of Medicine, Cardiff, UK.
Katherine SheltonSchool of Psychology, Cardiff University, Cardiff, Wales, UK.
Cardiff University · GBUniversity of Wales · GB

Funding

Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 205644/Z/16/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo explore social workers' and medical advisors' accounts of genetic testing in adoption.

methodsA qualitative study using semi-structured interviews to gather in-depth accounts of retrospective cases. Data were analysed thematically to identify professionals' knowledge and expectations.

resultsTwenty professionals working in adoption services (including 8 medical advisors and 12 social workers) participated in this study. Social workers adopted an essentialist (single-gene) model to discuss genetic testing in relation to past cases. They assumed that testing was a generic procedure for detecting the presence or absence of a specific aetiology, the results of which were believed to be definitive and mutually exclusive. By contrast, medical advisors were circumspect and agnostic about the meaning of results, especially in relation to chromosomal microarray testing. Whereas social workers believed that genetic testing provided clarity in assessment and therefore assisted adoption, medical advisors emphasised the uncertainties of testing and the possibility that prospective adopters might be misled. Medical advisors also reported inappropriate requests to test children where there was a family history of a genetic condition, or to confirm or exclude a diagnosis of fetal alcohol spectrum disorder in children presenting with non-specific dysmorphic features.

conclusionRecent advances in genetic technologies are changing the ways in which professionals understand and tolerate uncertainty in adoption. Social workers and medical advisors have different understandings and expectations about the clinical utility of genetic testing. These findings have implications for social work training about genetic testing and enabling effective communication between professional groups.

Indexed as

AdoptionGenetic TestingCommunicationFemaleHumansInterviews as TopicMalePediatriciansRetrospective StudiesSocial WorkersWaleschildren’s rightscomm child healthgeneticssocial work

Identifiers

PMID31296598
PMCPMC6951235
OpenAlexW2961392472

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.