Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33926532›Full record

ArticleGenome medicine2021

Application of a framework to guide genetic testing communication across clinical indications.

Miranda L G Hallquist, Eric P Tricou, Kelly E Ormond, Juliann M Savatt, Curtis R Coughlin, W Andrew Faucett, Laura Hercher, Howard P Levy, Julianne M O'Daniel, Holly L Peay and 6 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genome medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Leveraging continuous glucose monitoring as a catalyst for behaviour change: a scoping review.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Genetic Testing in Parkinson's Disease.Movement disorders : official journal of the Movement Disorder Society · 2023
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Communicating and Using Dementia Risk Evidence.Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD · 2022
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
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

16 authors at 9 institutions in 1 country.

Miranda L G HallquistGeisinger, 100 N Academy Blvd, Danville, PA, 17822, USA. mhallquist@geisinger.edu.ORCID 0000-0001-8554-2447
Eric P TricouGeisinger, 100 N Academy Blvd, Danville, PA, 17822, USA.
Kelly E OrmondDepartment of Genetics and Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics, Center for Academic Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, 453 Quarry Road, Stanford, CA, 94304, USA.
Juliann M SavattGeisinger, 100 N Academy Blvd, Danville, PA, 17822, USA.
Curtis R CoughlinUniversity of Colorado Department of Pediatrics and Center for Bioethics and Humanities, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado, 80045, USA.
W Andrew FaucettGeisinger, 100 N Academy Blvd, Danville, PA, 17822, USA.
Laura HercherSarah Lawrence College Joan H. Marks Graduate Program in Human Genetics, 1 Mead Way, Bronxville, NY, 10708, USA.
Howard P LevyJohns Hopkins University Division of General Internal Medicine and McKusick-Nathans Institute of Genetic Medicine, 0753 Falls Rd, Suite 325, Lutherville, MD, USA.
Julianne M O'DanielDepartment of Genetics Genetic Medicine Building, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 120 Mason Farm Rd, CB # 7264, Chapel Hill, NC, 27514, USA.
Holly L PeayRTI International, 3040 E Cornwallis Rd, Research Triangle Park, NC, 27709, USA.
Melissa StosicDotLab, 780 E Main St, Suite 1, Branford, CT, 06405, USA.
Maureen SmithNorthwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, 310 E. Superior St., Chicago, IL, 60611-3008, USA.
Wendy R UhlmannDepartment of Internal Medicine, Division of Genetic Medicine, University of Michigan Medicine, 300 North Ingalls, NI3 A03, SPC 5419, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109-5419, USA.
Hannah WandDepartment of Genetics and Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics, Center for Academic Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, 453 Quarry Road, Stanford, CA, 94304, USA.
Karen E WainGeisinger, 100 N Academy Blvd, Danville, PA, 17822, USA.
Adam H BuchananGeisinger, 100 N Academy Blvd, Danville, PA, 17822, USA.
Geisinger Medical Center · USStanford University · USJohns Hopkins University · USNorthwestern University · USRTI International · USSarah Lawrence College · USUniversity of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus · USUniversity of Michigan · USUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · US

Funding

The Future of PharmGKB Funding Under NHGRIU41HG009649 · NHGRI · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI BUSTAMANTE, CARLOS DANIEL · 2017 to 2020
$13.4M
The Clinical Genome Resource - Expert Curation and EHR IntegrationU41HG009650 · NHGRI · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI BERG, JONATHAN S, GODDARD, KATRINA A. · 2017 to 2020
$13.3M
NHGRI NIH HHS U41 HG009649NHGRI NIH HHS U41 HG009650
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGenetic information is increasingly relevant across healthcare. Traditional genetic counseling (GC) may limit access to genetic information and may be more information and support than some individuals need. We report on the application and clinical implications of a framework to consistently integrate genetics expertise where it is most useful to patients.

methodsThe Clinical Genome Resource's (ClinGen) Consent and Disclosure Recommendations (CADRe) workgroup designed rubrics to guide pre- and post-genetic test communication. Using a standard set of testing indications, pre- and post-test rubrics were applied to 40 genetic conditions or testing modalities with diverse features, including variability in levels of penetrance, clinical actionability, and evidence supporting a gene-disease relationship. Final communication recommendations were reached by group consensus.

resultsCommunication recommendations were determined for 478 unique condition-indication or testing-indication pairs. For half of the conditions and indications (238/478), targeted discussions (moderate communication depth) were the recommended starting communication level for pre- and post-test conversations. Traditional GC was recommended pre-test for adult-onset neurodegenerative conditions for individuals with no personal history and post-test for most conditions when genetic testing revealed a molecular diagnosis as these situations are likely higher in complexity and uncertainty. A brief communication approach was recommended for more straightforward conditions and indications (e.g., familial hypercholesterolemia; familial variant testing).

conclusionsThe CADRe recommendations provide guidance for clinicians in determining the depth of pre- and post-test communication, strategically aligning the anticipated needs of patients with the starting communication approach. Shorter targeted discussions or brief communications are suggested for many tests and indications. Longer traditional GC consultations would be reserved for patients with more complex and uncertain situations where detailed information, education, and psychological support can be most beneficial. Future studies of the CADRe communication framework will be essential for determining if CADRe-informed care supports quality patient experience while improving access to genetic information across healthcare.

Indexed as

CommunicationGenetic TestingDisclosureHumansInformed ConsentAccessGenetic counselingGenetic testingInformed consentResults disclosureService delivery

Identifiers

PMID33926532
PMCPMC8086064
OpenAlexW3157867130

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.