Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38320848›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical ethics2024

Ethical preparedness in genomic medicine: how NHS clinical scientists navigate ethical issues.

Kate Sahan, Kate Lyle, Helena Carley, Nina Hallowell, Michael J Parker, Anneke M Lucassen

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical ethics, 2024. 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
6.1field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Population health management of human phenotype ontology.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Kate SahanEthox Centre, University of Oxford Nuffield Department of Population Health, Oxford, UK kate.sahan@ethox.ox.ac.uk.
Kate LyleWellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics, Oxford, UK.
Helena CarleyClinical Ethics, Law, and Society (CELS) Oxford, Nuffield Dept of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Nina HallowellEthox Centre, University of Oxford Nuffield Department of Population Health, Oxford, UK.
Michael J ParkerEthox Centre, University of Oxford Nuffield Department of Population Health, Oxford, UK.
Anneke M LucassenWellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3324-4338
University of Oxford · GBCentre for Human Genetics · GBGuy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UK C61296/A27223Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 208053/Z/17/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Much has been published about the ethical issues encountered by clinicians in genetics/genomics, but those experienced by clinical laboratory scientists are less well described. Clinical laboratory scientists now frequently face navigating ethical problems in their work, but how they should be best supported to do this is underexplored. This lack of attention is also reflected in the ethics tools available to clinical laboratory scientists such as guidance and deliberative ethics forums, developed primarily to manage issues arising within the clinic.We explore what ethical issues are being experienced by clinical scientists, how they think such issues could be best analysed and managed, and whether their practice might be enhanced by more situated approaches to ethics deliberation and practice such as ethical preparedness. From thematic analysis of cases presented by clinical scientists at a specially convened meeting of the UK Genethics Forum, we derived three main ethical themes: (1) the redistribution of labour and responsibilities resulting from the practice of genomic medicine; (2) the interpretation and certainty of results and (3) the proposal that better standardisation and consistency of ethical approaches (for example, more guidelines and policy) could resolve some of the challenges arising.We argue that although standardisation is important for promoting shared understandings of good (including ethical) practice, supplementary approaches to enhance and sustain ethical preparedness will be important to help clinical scientists and others in the recently expanded genetic/genomic medicine environment foster quality ethical thinking.

Indexed as

GenomicsState MedicineHumansResearch PersonnelUnited KingdomEthics- Medical

Identifiers

PMID38320848
PMCPMC11287646
OpenAlexW4391560254

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.