ArticleJournal of genetic counseling2025
Experiences of predictive genetic testing in inherited motor neuron disease: Findings from a qualitative interview study.
Article in Journal of genetic counseling, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Predictive genetic testing in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS): Experiences of decision-making and engagement with UK genetic counseling services.Journal of genetic counseling · 2026Article
- Beyond the Diagnosis: Valuing Genome-Wide Sequencing for Rare Disease Diagnosis Using Contingent Valuation.Applied health economics and health policy · 2025Article
- Experiences of predictive genetic testing in inherited motor neuron disease: Findings from a qualitative interview study.Journal of genetic counseling · 2025Article
- Genetic testing for monogenic forms of motor neuron disease/amyotrophic lateral sclerosis in unaffected family members.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Predictive genetic testing is increasingly available for individuals with a heightened risk of motor neuron disease (MND). However, little is known about how they decide whether or not to get tested, and how they experience this process. This paper reports findings from a constructivist grounded theory-informed interview study with 24 family members of people with identified or suspected inherited MND (iMND). Fourteen did not know their genetic status, and nine had decided to have predictive testing, of whom six tested positive for the pathogenic gene variant identified in their family and three tested negative. One additional person was identified as negative through a parent's negative result. This paper explores the diverse ways people approached testing, and the many factors and motivations involved, based on personal attitudes and goals, experiences of living with genetic risk, and wider family considerations and circumstances. Results were met with a range of emotions; whatever the outcome, the news disrupted each person's view of the future, and they adapted in their own way and time. Support after results was variable and a perceived lack of support impacted coping and the ability to move forwards. This paper situates findings against literature on other genetic conditions, highlighting experiences as grounded in the unique characteristics of iMND. Thus, it emphasizes the need for disease-specific guidelines and support structures around predictive genetic testing in this context. Understanding people's experiences and responding to these needs is particularly timely given the uptake of testing amongst this group is anticipated to rise with increasing access to genetic testing for people with MND, and gene-specific clinical trials.
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.