Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37646012›Full record

ArticleHGG advances2023

Project Inclusive Genetics: Protecting reproductive autonomy from bias via prenatal patient-centered counseling.

Apolline Jungels, Lindsay Demers, Eric Ford, Blair K Stevens, Maya Sabatello, Shoumita Dasgupta

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in HGG advances, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

6 authors.

Apolline JungelsBoston University Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA.
Lindsay DemersDepartment of Medicine, Boston University Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine, Boston MA, USA.
Eric FordIndependent Scholar, Brooklyn, NY, USA.
Blair K StevensDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, McGovern Medical School, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX, USA.
Maya SabatelloCenter for Precision Medicine and Genomics, Department of Medicine, and Division of Ethics, Department of Medical Humanities and Ethics, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.
Shoumita DasguptaDepartment of Medicine, Biomedical Genetics Section, Boston University Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA.

Funding

Disability, diversity and trust in precision medicine research: stakeholdersengagementR01HG010868 · NHGRI · NEW YORK STATE PSYCHIATRIC INSTITUTE DBA RESEARCH FOUNDATION FOR MENTAL HYGIENE, INC · PI SABATELLO, MAYA · 2020 to 2023
$3.5M
Impact of Psychiatric Genetic Data on Civil Litigation and its Relationship with StigmaK01HG008653 · NHGRI · NEW YORK STATE PSYCHIATRIC INSTITUTE DBA RESEARCH FOUNDATION FOR MENTAL HYGIENE, INC · PI SABATELLO, MAYA · 2015 to 2019
$871k
NHGRI NIH HHS K01 HG008653NHGRI NIH HHS R01 HG010868
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Clinician bias negatively impacts the healthcare received by marginalized communities. In this study, we explored factors that influence clinician and trainee bias against individuals with intellectual disabilities and its impact on clinical judgment in prenatal genetic testing settings. Specifically, we examined bias toward a fetus with a higher chance of developing a disability. We compared genetics specialists with their non-expert counterparts. This web-based study included clinical vignettes, implicit association tests (IATs), and an educational module. 595 participants were recruited via their institution or professional society. We conducted statistical analyses, including regression models controlling for key demographic characteristics, to analyze recommendation patterns and degree of change after the module. Genetics expertise strongly correlated with appropriate testing recommendation when the patient would not consider pregnancy termination (r = 1.784 pre-module, r = 1.502 post-module, p < 0.01). Factors that influenced pre-module recommendation to test include increased age (r = -0.029, p < 0.05), high religiosity (r = 0.525, p < 0.05), and participant personal preference against testing (r = 1.112, p < 0.01). Responses among participants without genetics expertise improved after the educational module (

Indexed as

Intellectual DisabilityReproductionCounselingEducational StatusFamily Planning ServicesFemaleHumansPatient-Centered CarePregnancybiasclinician educationdisabilitygenetic counselingpatient-centered counselingprenatal genetic testing

Identifiers

PMID37646012
PMCPMC10461018

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.