ArticleEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2022
Where is genetic medicine headed? Exploring the perspectives of Canadian genetic professionals on future trends using the Delphi method.
Article in European journal of human genetics : EJHG, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Integrating paediatric subspecialists into the delivery of genomic medicine: A qualitative study.Paediatrics & child health · 2026Article
- An introduction to Delphi studies and consensus methods for genetic counselors.Journal of genetic counseling · 2025Article
- Exploring individuals' experiences with self-reported unmet need for genetic testing.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2025Article
- The role and value of real-world evidence in health technology decision-making in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the UK: insights on external control arms.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2025Review
- Global trends and themes in genetic counseling research.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2023Article
- Workforce Implications of Increased Referrals to Hereditary Cancer Services in Canada: A Scenario-Based Analysis.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2023Article
- Democratizing clinical-genomic data: How federated platforms can promote benefits sharing in genomics.Frontiers in genetics · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Driven by technological and scientific advances, the landscape of genetic medicine is rapidly changing, which complicates strategic planning and decision-making in this area. To address this uncertainty, we sought to understand genetic professionals' opinions about the future of clinical genetic and genomic services in Canada. We used the Delphi method to survey Canadian genetic professionals about their perspectives on whether scenarios about changes in service delivery and the use of genomic testing would be broadly implemented in their jurisdiction by 2030. We conducted two survey rounds; the response rates were 32% (27/84) and 67% (18/27), respectively. The most likely scenario was the universal use of noninvasive prenatal screening. The least likely scenarios involved population-based genome-wide sequencing for unaffected individuals. Overall, the scenarios perceived as most likely were those that have existing evidence about their benefit and potential medical necessity, whereas scenarios were seen as unlikely if they involved emerging technologies. Participants expected that the need for genetic healthcare services would increase by 2030 owing to changes in clinical guidelines and increased use of genome-wide sequencing. This study highlights the uncertainty in the future of genetic and genomic service provision and contributes evidence that could be used to inform strategic planning in clinical genetics.
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.