ArticleBiotech (Basel (Switzerland))2023
Privacy Implications of Contacting the At-Risk Relatives of Patients with Medically Actionable Genetic Predisposition, with Patient Consent: A Hypothetical Australian Case Study.
Article in Biotech (Basel (Switzerland)), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Public perspectives on healthcare professional-directed communication of hereditary genetic risks: a mixed-method systematic review.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2026Pooled it
- Perception of Family Genetic Testing for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer: A Survey of Patients and General Public.Journal of Korean medical science · 2026Article
- "Would you want to know?" Questions of utility and responsibility in Italian laypersons' preferences about genetic risk communication.Journal of community genetics · 2025Article
- Maximizing cascade genetic testing for disease prevention through direct notification of at-risk relatives.Nature medicine · 2025Article
- Clinicians' discretion to contact patients' at-risk relatives about their genetic risk: new guidance from Australia's privacy regulator provides timely clarification.The Medical journal of Australia · 2025Article
- Health professionals contacting patients' relatives directly about genetic risk (with patient consent): current clinical practice and perspectives.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2025Article
- Direct notification by health professionals of relatives at-risk of genetic conditions (with patient consent): views of the Australian public.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Genetic risk information has relevance for patients' blood relatives. However, cascade testing uptake in at-risk families is <50%. International research supports direct notification of at-risk relatives by health professionals (HPs), with patient consent. However, HPs express concerns about the privacy implications of this practice. Our privacy analysis, grounded in a clinically relevant hypothetical scenario, considers the types of personal information involved in direct notification of at-risk relatives and the application of Australian privacy regulations. It finds that collecting relatives' contact details, and using those details (with patient consent) to notify relatives of possible genetic risk, does not breach Australian privacy law, providing that HPs adhere to regulatory requirements. It finds the purported "right to know" does not prevent disclosure of genetic information to at-risk relatives. Finally, the analysis confirms that the discretion available to HPs does not equate to a positive duty to warn at-risk relatives. Thus, direct notification of a patient's at-risk relatives regarding medically actionable genetic information, with patient consent, is not a breach of Australian privacy regulations, providing it is conducted in accordance with the applicable principles set out. Clinical services should consider offering this service to patients where appropriate. National guidelines would assist with the clarification of the discretion for HPs.
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.