Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35727796›Full record

ArticlePloS one2022

Dynamics of reproductive genetic technologies: Perspectives of professional stakeholders.

Ivy van Dijke, Carla G van El, Phillis Lakeman, Mariëtte Goddijn, Tessel Rigter, Martina C Cornel, Lidewij Henneman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. 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

7 authors.

Ivy van DijkeDepartment of Human Genetics and Amsterdam Reproduction & Development Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-5396-751X
Carla G van ElDepartment of Human Genetics and Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Phillis LakemanDepartment of Human Genetics and Amsterdam Reproduction & Development Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Mariëtte GoddijnAmsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Center for Reproductive Medicine and Amsterdam Reproduction & Development Research Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Tessel RigterDepartment of Human Genetics and Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-6038-6289
Martina C CornelDepartment of Human Genetics and Amsterdam Reproduction & Development Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-5397-5544
Lidewij HennemanDepartment of Human Genetics and Amsterdam Reproduction & Development Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-3531-0597

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Reproductive and genetic medicine are evolving rapidly, and new technologies are already impacting current practices. This includes technologies that can identify a couples' risk of having a child with a genetic disorder. Responsible implementation of new technologies requires evaluation of safety and ethics. Valuable insights for shaping governance processes are provided by various stakeholders involved, including healthcare professionals. Their willingness to adopt these technologies and guide the necessary systemic changes is required for the successful implementation of these technologies. In this study, twenty-one semi-structured interviews were conducted with professionals from different disciplines in the field of reproductive and genetic healthcare in the Netherlands. Three emerging technologies were discussed: expanded carrier screening (ECS), non-invasive prenatal diagnosis (NIPD) and germline genome editing (GGE). By probing stakeholders' views, we explored how culture, structure and practice in healthcare is being shaped by innovations and changing dynamics in genetic and reproductive medicine. The general consensus was that the implementation of reproductive genetic technologies nationwide is a slow process in Dutch healthcare. A "typical Dutch approach" emerged that is characterized by restrictive legislation, broad support for people living with disabilities, values of an egalitarian society and limited commercialisation. Different scenarios for embedding ECS in future practice were envisioned, while implementation of NIPD in clinical practice was considered obvious. Views on GGE varied among stakeholders. Previous implementation examples in the Netherlands suggest introduction of new technology involves an organized collective learning process, with pilot studies and stepwise implementation. In addition, introducing and scaling up new technologies is complex due to perceived barriers from the legislative framework and the complex relationship between the government and stakeholders in this area. This paper describes how the international trends and advances of technologies are expected to manifest itself in a national setting.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareHealth PersonnelChildFemaleGovernmentHumansMass ScreeningPregnancyReproduction

Identifiers

PMID35727796
PMCPMC9212161

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.