Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34695272›Full record

ArticleJournal of genetic counseling2022

Experiences of adolescents and their parents after receiving adolescents' genomic screening results.

Natasha Lillie, Cynthia A Prows, Michelle L McGowan, Amy A Blumling, Melanie F Myers

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of genetic counseling, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Survey research in genetic counseling.Journal of genetic counseling · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. 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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Natasha LillieDivision of Human Genetics, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-8465-1403
Cynthia A ProwsDivision of Human Genetics, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA.
Michelle L McGowanEthics Center, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA.
Amy A BlumlingDivision of Human Genetics, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA.
Melanie F MyersDivision of Human Genetics, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6845-5226
Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center · US

Funding

LCenter for Clinical and Translational Science and TrainingUL1TR001425 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI · PI HEUBI, JAMES E., KISSELA, BRETT M · 2015 to 2024
$37.5M
Better Outcomes for Children: Promoting Excellence in Healthcare Genomics to Inform PolicyU01HG008666 · NHGRI · CINCINNATI CHILDRENS HOSP MED CTR · PI HARLEY, JOHN BARKER · 2015 to 2019
$4.2M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001425NCATS NIH HHS UL1TR001425NHGRI NIH HHS U01 HG008666
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There has been considerable debate over whether adolescents should have the opportunity to learn genetic information about adult-onset disease risk and carrier status without a clinical indication. Adolescents face increasing opportunities to learn more about such genetic risks through the return of secondary findings from clinical genomic testing, direct-to-consumer genetic testing, and research opportunities. However, little is known about the perspectives of adolescents who have received genomic screening results. We conducted separate qualitative interviews with 15 adolescents and their parents who enrolled in a research protocol where they decided which genomic screening results to receive for the adolescent for up to 32 conditions informed by 84 genes. The goal of these interviews was to explore the impact of adolescents learning genomic results without a clinical indication for screening. Of the participating dyads, four received positive results for a pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP) variant for an autosomal dominant (AD) condition, five received carrier results for a heterozygous P/LP variant for an autosomal recessive (AR) condition, and six received negative results. An interpretive descriptive qualitative approach was used. Interview transcripts were coded using a guide developed by the study team based on themes that emerged from the interviews. Degree of recall and description of results, actionability, and emotional responses differed according to the types of results received. However, all participants were satisfied with their decision to learn results, and most did not report any lasting psychological harms. Participants adapted to genomic information about themselves, even after learning about unexpected increased risk for future health problems. Our findings support the position that, whenever possible, perspectives and wishes of adolescents should be strongly considered and respected in the decision-making process regarding genetic testing.

Indexed as

Direct-To-Consumer Screening and TestingParentsAdolescentAdultGenetic TestingGenomicsHumansMotivationQualitative Researchadolescentcarrier testinggenetic testinggenomic screeningpredictive genetic testingpsychosocialreturn of results

Identifiers

PMID34695272
PMCPMC10093789
OpenAlexW3210880431

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.