Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38528054›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2024

Evaluation of a two-step model of opportunistic genomic screening.

Melissa Martyn, Ling Lee, Alli Jan, Elly Lynch, Rona Weerasuriya, Anaita Kanga-Parabia, Clara Gaff

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of human genetics : EJHG, 2024. 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. 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

7 authors.

Melissa MartynMelbourne Genomics Health Alliance, Parkville, VIC, 3052, Australia. melissa.martyn@mcri.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0001-5263-4329
Ling LeeMelbourne Genomics Health Alliance, Parkville, VIC, 3052, Australia.
Alli JanMurdoch Children's Research Institute, The Royal Children's Hospital, 50 Flemington Road, Parkville, VIC, 3052, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-9854-2224
Elly LynchMurdoch Children's Research Institute, The Royal Children's Hospital, 50 Flemington Road, Parkville, VIC, 3052, Australia.
Rona WeerasuriyaMurdoch Children's Research Institute, The Royal Children's Hospital, 50 Flemington Road, Parkville, VIC, 3052, Australia.
Anaita Kanga-ParabiaDepartment of Paediatrics, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, 3052, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-4656-9246
Clara GaffMelbourne Genomics Health Alliance, Parkville, VIC, 3052, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-0160-4159

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Increasing use of diagnostic genomic sequencing is pushing health services to confront the issue of opportunistic genomic screening (OGS). To date, OGS has been offered concomitant with diagnostic testing. In contrast, we piloted a service offering OGS after return of diagnostic testing results. Evaluation was designed to provide insights for future models of service and included patient surveys at three time points, semi-structured interviews with genetic counsellors (GCs) and a focus group with medical scientists. Uptake was relatively low: 83 of 200 patients approached (42%) attended the OGS service, with 81 accepting OGS. Whilst many who declined to attend the service cited practical barriers, others gave reasons that indicated this was a considered decision. Despite specific genetic counselling, one third of patients did not understand the scope of re-analysis. Yet after post-test counselling, all respondents with novel pathogenic additional findings (AF) understood the implications and reported relevant follow-up. Recall was high: five months after last contact, 75% recalled being offered OGS without prompting. GC interviews and patient survey responses provide insights into complexities that influence patient support needs, including diagnostic status and AF result type. There was no consensus among patients or professionals about when to offer OGS. There was a clear preference for multiple, flexible methods of information provision; achieving this whilst balancing patient support needs and resource requirements is a challenge requiring further investigation. Decisions about whether, when and how to offer OGS are complex; our study shows the two-step approach warrants further exploration.

Indexed as

Genetic CounselingGenetic TestingAdultAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle Aged

Identifiers

PMID38528054
PMCPMC11153562

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.