ArticleAJOB empirical bioethics
Views of Genetic Testing for Autism Among Autism Self-Advocates: A Qualitative Study.
Article in AJOB empirical bioethics. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Genetic Testing History in Adults With Autism Spectrum Disorder.Journal of autism and developmental disorders · 2026Article
- Does genetic testing impact stigma in autism: A scoping review.Journal of community genetics · 2026Review
- Ambiguities faced by parents who received a genetic diagnosis for autistic offspring with intellectual disabilities.Journal of community genetics · 2025Article
- Autistic perspectives on the moral and ethical considerations of genetic testing for autism.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2025Article
- Prenatal gene editing for neurodevelopmental diseases: Ethical considerations.American journal of human genetics · 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
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAutism self-advocates' views regarding genetic tests for autism are important, but critical questions about their perspectives arise.
methodsWe interviewed 11 autism self-advocates, recruited through autism self-advocacy websites, for 1 h each.
resultsInterviewees viewed genetic testing and its potential pros and cons through the lens of their own indiviudal perceived challenges, needs and struggles, especially concerning stigma and discrimination, lack of accommodations and misunderstandings from society about autism, their particular needs for services, and being blamed by others and by themselves for autistic traits. Their views of genetic testing tended not to be binary, but rather depended on
conclusionsThis study, the first to use in-depth qualitative interviews to assess views of autism self-advocates regarding genetic testing, highlights key complexities. Respondents felt that such testing is neither wholly good or bad in itself, but rather may be acceptable
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.