Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37592172›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2023

Dealing with ambivalence in the practice of advanced genetic healthcare: towards an ethical choreography.

Janneke M L Kuiper, Pascal Borry, Danya F Vears, Hilde Van Esch, Martina C Cornel, Ine Van Hoyweghen

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of human genetics : EJHG, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. The value of large-scale programmes in human genomics.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Ambivalence in genomic healthcare provision, cure or symptom?European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2023
    Article
  5. Ambivalence and regret in genome sequencing.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2023
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Janneke M L KuiperCentre for Sociological Research, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. janneke.kuiper@kuleuven.be.ORCID 0000-0003-3021-6016
Pascal BorryCentre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-4931-9560
Danya F VearsCentre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-6290-545X
Hilde Van EschCenter for Human genetics, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-9604-5726
Martina C CornelAmsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Human Genetics and Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-5397-5544
Ine Van HoyweghenCentre for Sociological Research, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-9402-2918
KU Leuven · BEAmsterdam University Medical Centers · NLThe University of Melbourne · AU

Funding

EC | Horizon 2020 Framework Programme (EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation H2020) 101057721EC | Horizon 2020 Framework Programme (EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation H2020) 825903KU Leuven (Katholieke Universiteit Leuven) 3H180506
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The implementation of next-generation sequencing (NGS) in diagnostic practice has stimulated ongoing debates on how to construct and perform "good" genomic care. Our multi-sited qualitative fieldwork at two large European centres for human genetics (CHGs) revealed tangible ambivalence in beliefs, norms, and actions in the enactment of NGS practices across sites stemming from differing expectations, interests, demands, and tensions. First, ambivalence was present around the boundaries of clinical diagnostic genetic care. The overlap between research and clinical work and diagnostics and screening led to ambivalence around "best" practices and norms concerning whom to offer NGS testing and how far to take testing. Secondly, the clinical value of NGS results, especially VUS and unsolicited findings, was ambivalently valued, resulting in an inconsistent approach towards these types of findings. Thirdly, ambivalence was recognized in applying guidelines in the reality of clinical practice. The ambivalence we encountered was often not made explicit or acknowledged, causing a failure to benefit from its possibility to encourage reflexivity and change. We propose to facilitate a more explicit ethical choreography [27], where ethics and science are developed iteratively whilst welcoming different perspectives and disciplines. Pulling experiences and practices of ambivalence into the light can help to understand the points of tension in the values and internal logic in care practices within the CHGs and facilitate a more informed, transparent, and consciously chosen direction for genetic care.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumans

Identifiers

PMID37592172
PMCPMC10689481
OpenAlexW4385902121

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.