Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39039945›Full record

ArticleJournal of genetic counseling2025

Genetic counselors' awareness and attitudes regarding gene therapies.

Chelsey Walsh, Andrea L Durst, Damara Ortiz, Rachel G Miller, Michelle Alabek

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. 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

5 authors.

Chelsey WalshDepartment of Human Genetics, Graduate School of Public Health, Genetic Counseling Program, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.ORCID 0009-0005-4408-4546
Andrea L DurstDepartment of Human Genetics, Graduate School of Public Health, Genetic Counseling Program, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Damara OrtizDepartment of Human Genetics, Graduate School of Public Health, Genetic Counseling Program, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Rachel G MillerDepartment of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Michelle AlabekDepartment of Human Genetics, Graduate School of Public Health, Genetic Counseling Program, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.

Funding

University of Pittsburgh Clinical and Translational Science InstituteUL1TR001857 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI REIS, STEVEN E · 2016 to 2025
$129.3M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001857NIH HHS UL1-TR-001857
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There are 10 gene therapies (GTs) for hereditary conditions that are currently approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). While prior research demonstrates that the majority of healthcare providers lack knowledge regarding GTs, this has not been explored within the genetic counseling profession. The authors hypothesize that the availability of GTs impacts the genetic counseling profession and that there is variable awareness on this topic among genetic counselors (GCs). We conducted a survey to assess GCs' familiarity with, comfort with, and frequency of discussing FDA-approved GTs at the time of the survey, as well as GCs' perceived impact of and educational experiences related to GT. The survey was distributed through listservs and word of mouth from January through March 2021. One hundred of the 109 responses met eligibility criteria. Respondents were more familiar with onasemnogene abeparvovec-xioi (ZOLGENSMA; Novartis Gene Therapies, Inc., Durham, NC, USA) than voretigene neparvovec-rzyl (LUXTURNA; Spark Therapeutics, Inc., Philadelphia, PA, USA; p < 0.001). Familiarity with, comfort with, and frequency of discussing both GTs varied by specialty but not by years of experience. Fifty-nine percent of respondents (58/98) reported that GTs impact their work, with differences by specialty but not by years of experience. The majority of respondents (93%; 90/97) felt that GCs should be comfortable discussing GTs with patients, and most respondents (83%; 79/95) were interested in additional GT training. Only 38% of respondents (36/95) recalled GT being included in their genetic counseling training program's curriculum, which may be skewed by recent growth of this field. Our results suggest that GCs feel that GTs impact their practice, have discrepant awareness and comfort in this area, and desire additional training on this topic. Further investigation into the actual impact and models for addressing training is warranted and will be critical as the number of approved GTs increases.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelAwarenessCounselorsGenetic CounselingGenetic TherapyHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeAdultFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSurveys and Questionnaireseducationgene therapygenetic counselinggenetic counselorstreatment

Identifiers

PMID39039945
PMCPMC11754531

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.