ArticleJournal of genetic counseling2020
Experiences and lessons learned by genetic counselors in returning secondary genetic findings to patients.
Article in Journal of genetic counseling, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- How people undergoing genomic sequencing interpret and react to varied secondary findings with limited actionability.Personalized medicine · 2025Article
- Evaluation of a two-step model of opportunistic genomic screening.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2024Article
- Article
- A qualitative study among patients with an inherited retinal disease on the meaning of genomic unsolicited findings.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Exploring the use of a Comic for Education about Expanded Carrier Screening among a Diverse Group of Mothers.Journal of communication in healthcare · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Few studies have explored the real-world experiences and strategies of genetic counselors involved in the process of returning secondary findings (SFs). This study aimed to describe and categorize the experiences for the return of SFs from clinical sequencing. Semi-structured telephone interviews with 21 genetic counselors representing 56 incidences were conducted. A content analysis was conducted on the transcripts through an iterative, team-based approach. Four common categories emerged across all interviews. These included (a) the importance of pretest counseling for the return of SFs, (b) how primary test results influenced the level of importance placed on the SFs, (c) patients' emotional reactions from receiving SF results, and (d) how returning SFs changed future pretest counseling and consent. This study identified experiences and common practices by genetic counselors who returned SFs. More research is needed to assess how genetic counselors' specific strategies improve patient comprehension and medical actions.
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.