ArticleGenetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics2024
"It's hard to wait": Provider perspectives on current genomic care in safety-net NICUs.
Article in Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics, 2024. 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.
- Patient harms during delayed access to clinical genetics services. A systematic literature review and synthesis without meta-analysis (SWiM).European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2026Review
- Understanding perspectives of safety-net NICU neonatologists disclosing genomic sequencing results: a mixed methods approach.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2026Article
- Quality improvement initiative to optimize use of rapid genomic sequencing in a level IV NICU.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2026Article
- Transforming NICU care: rapid WES and transcriptomics-validation, social impact, and cost analysis.European journal of pediatrics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeCritically ill infants from marginalized populations disproportionately receive care in neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) that lack access to state-of-the-art genomic care, leading to inequitable outcomes. We sought provider perspectives to inform our implementation study (VIGOR) providing rapid genomic sequencing within these settings.
methodsWe conducted semistructured focus groups with neonatal and genetics providers at 6 NICUs at safety-net hospitals, informed by the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services framework, which incorporates evidence, context, and facilitation domains. We iteratively developed codes and themes until thematic saturation was reached.
resultsRegarding evidence, providers felt that genetic testing benefits infants and families. Regarding context, the major barriers identified to genomic care were genetic testing cost, lack of genetics expertise for disclosure and follow-up, and navigating the complexity of selecting and ordering genetic tests. Providers had negative feelings about the current status quo and inequity in genomic care across NICUs. Regarding facilitation, providers felt that a virtual support model such as VIGOR would address major barriers and foster family-centered care and collaboration.
conclusionNICU providers at safety-net hospitals believe that access to state-of-the-art genomic care is critical for optimizing infant outcomes; yet, substantial barriers exist that the VIGOR study may address.
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.