Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36765027›Full record

ArticleJournal of community genetics2023

Re-envisioning community genetics: community empowerment in preventive genomics.

Hannah Wand, Daphne O Martschenko, Annamaria Smitherman, Sheryl Michelson, Ting Pun, John S Witte, Stuart A Scott, Mildred K Cho, Euan A Ashley, Preventive Genomics Program Co-Design Working Group

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of community genetics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Placing Publics in Public Health Genomics.Public health genomics · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Rethinking the "Public" and Rethinking "Engagement".The American journal of bioethics : AJOB · 2023
    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

10 authors.

Hannah WandDepartment of Cardiology, Stanford Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA. hwand@stanfordhealthcare.org.
Daphne O MartschenkoStanford Center for Biomedical Ethics, Stanford Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA.
Annamaria SmithermanPatient and Family Partner Program, Stanford Health Care, Palo Alto, CA, USA.
Sheryl MichelsonPatient and Family Partner Program, Stanford Health Care, Palo Alto, CA, USA.
Ting PunPatient and Family Partner Program, Stanford Health Care, Palo Alto, CA, USA.
John S WitteBiomedical Data Science and Genetics (By Courtesy), Stanford Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA.
Stuart A ScottDepartment of Pathology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
Mildred K ChoStanford Center for Biomedical Ethics, Stanford Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA.
Euan A AshleyDepartment of Cardiology, Stanford Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA.
Preventive Genomics Program Co-Design Working Group

Funding

The Future of PharmGKB Funding Under NHGRIU41HG009649 · NHGRI · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI BUSTAMANTE, CARLOS DANIEL · 2017 to 2020
$13.4M
The Stanford Training Program in ELSI ResearchT32HG008953 · NHGRI · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI Mildred K. Cho, Meghan Halley · 2016 to 2026
$3.1M
NHGRI NIH HHS T32 HG008953NHGRI NIH HHS U41 HG009649NIH HHS U41 HG009649
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As genomic technologies rapidly develop, polygenic scores (PGS) are entering into a growing conversation on how to improve precision in public health and prevent chronic disease. While the integration of PGS into public health and clinical services raises potential benefits, it also introduces potential harms. In particular, there is a high level of uncertainty about how to incorporate PGS into clinical settings in a manner that is equitable, just, and aligned with the long-term goals of many healthcare systems to support person-centered and value-based care. This paper argues that any conversation about whether and how to design and implement PGS clinical services requires dynamic engagement with local communities, patients, and families. These parties often face the consequences, both positive and negative, of such uncertainties and should therefore drive clinical translation. As a collaborative effort between hospital stakeholders, community partners, and researchers, this paper describes a community-empowered co-design process for addressing uncertainty and making programmatic decisions about the implementation of PGS into clinical services. We provide a framework for others interested in designing clinical programs that are responsive to, and inclusive and respectful of, local communities.

Indexed as

Community engagementImplementation sciencePolygenic scoresPrecision public healthProgram development

Identifiers

PMID36765027
PMCPMC9918397

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.