Trial reportJournal of genetic counseling2023
Evaluating a communication aid for return of genetic results in families with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: A randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Journal of genetic counseling, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluating a communication aid for return of genetic results in families with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: A randomized controlled trial.Journal of genetic counseling · 2023Trial
- A survey of factors influencing the intention to undergo genetic testing in patients with cardiovascular disease in Japan.Journal of genetic counseling · 2026Article
- Genetic testing and counseling for hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: An evidence-based practice resource of the National Society of Genetic Counselors.Journal of genetic counseling · 2025Review
- Secondary Reporting of G6PD Deficiency on Newborn Screening.International journal of neonatal screening · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Genetic testing for hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) is considered a key aspect of management. Communication of genetic test results to the proband and their family members, can be a barrier to effective uptake. We hypothesized that a communication aid would facilitate effective communication, and sought to evaluate knowledge and communication of HCM risk to at-risk relatives. This was a prospective randomized controlled trial. Consecutive HCM patients attending a specialized clinic, who agreed to participate, were randomized to the intervention or current clinical practice. The intervention consisted of a genetic counselor-led appointment, separate to their clinical cardiology review, and guided by a communication booklet which could be written in and taken home. Current clinical practice was defined as the return of the genetic result by a genetic counselor and cardiologist, often as part of a clinical cardiology review. The primary outcome was the ability and confidence of the individual to communicate genetic results to at-risk relatives. The a priori outcome of improved communication among HCM families did not show statistically significant differences between the control and intervention group, though the majority of probands in the intervention group achieved fair communication (n = 13/22) and had higher genetic knowledge scores than those in the control group (7 ± 3 versus 6 ± 3). A total of 29% of at-risk relatives were not informed of a genetic result in their family. Communication among HCM families remains challenging, with nearly a third of at-risk relatives not informed of a genetic result. We show a significant gap in the current approach to supporting family communication about genetics. Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12617000706370.
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.