Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33941882›Full record

ArticleGenetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics2021

The 2019 US medical genetics workforce: a focus on clinical genetics.

Brittany D Jenkins, Catherine G Fischer, Curt A Polito, Deborah R Maiese, Alisha S Keehn, Megan Lyon, Mathew J Edick, Matthew R G Taylor, Hans C Andersson, Joann N Bodurtha and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 92 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
92citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

92 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Artificial intelligence in clinical genetics: Current practice and attitudes among the clinical genetics workforce.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Disparate language and model effects on AI-based translation and recognition of genetic conditions.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Understanding perspectives of safety-net NICU neonatologists disclosing genomic sequencing results: a mixed methods approach.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2026
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Assessing genetic counseling efficiency with natural language processing.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2026
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

32 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Brittany D JenkinsCancer Prevention Fellowship Program, Division of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Catherine G FischerCancer Prevention Fellowship Program, Division of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Curt A PolitoMcKusick-Nathans Dept. of Genetic Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Deborah R MaieseAmerican College of Medical Genetics and Genomics, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Alisha S KeehnAmerican College of Medical Genetics and Genomics; Health Resources and Services Administration/Maternal Child Health Bureau (as of 11/8/2020), Rockville, MD, USA.
Megan LyonAmerican College of Medical Genetics and Genomics, Bethesda, MD, USA. mlyon@acmg.net.
Mathew J EdickMichigan Public Health Institute, Okemos, MI, USA.
Matthew R G TaylorUniversity of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA.
Hans C AnderssonTulane University Medical Center, New Orleans, LA, USA.
Joann N BodurthaMcKusick-Nathans Dept. of Genetic Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Miriam G BlitzerAmerican Board of Medical Genetics and Genomics, Rockville, MD, USA.
Maximilian MuenkeAmerican College of Medical Genetics and Genomics, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Michael S WatsonAmerican College of Medical Genetics and Genomics, Bethesda, MD, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis study characterizes the US clinical genetics workforce to inform workforce planning and public policy development.

methodsA 32-question survey was electronically distributed to American Board of Medical Genetics and Genomics board-certified/eligible diplomates in 2019. We conducted a descriptive analysis of responses from practicing clinical geneticists.

resultsOf the 491 clinical geneticists responding to the survey, a majority were female (59%) and White (79%), worked in academic medical centers (73%), and many engaged in telemedicine (33%). Clinical geneticists reported an average of 13 new and 10 follow-up patient visits per week. The average work week was 50 hours and the majority (58%) worked over half-time in clinical duties. Providers indicated that 39% of new emergency patients wait 3 days or more, and 39% of nonemergency patients wait over 3 months to be seen. Respondents were geographically concentrated in metropolitan areas and many reported unfilled clinical geneticist job vacancies at their institution of more than 3 years.

conclusionWith the rapid expansion of genomic medicine in the past decade, there is still a gap between genetics services needed and workforce capacity. A concerted effort is required to increase the number of clinical geneticists and enhance interdisciplinary teamwork to meet increasing patient needs.

Indexed as

Genetics, MedicalMedicinePhysiciansFemaleGenetic ServicesHumansMaleUnited StatesWorkforce

Identifiers

PMID33941882
PMCPMC8091643

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.