Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39294722›Full record

ArticleInternational journal for equity in health2024

Aboriginal families living with MJD in remote Australia: questions of access and equity.

Libby Massey, John Gilroy, Emma Kowal, Denise Doolan, Alan Clough

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal for equity in health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Libby MasseyDivision of Tropical Health and Medicine, James Cook University, Cairns, QLD, Australia. libby.massey@mjd.org.au.
John GilroyThe Charles Perkins Centre, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Emma KowalAlfred Deakin Institute, Deakin University, Melbourne, Australia.
Denise DoolanAustralian Institute of Tropical Health and Medicine, James Cook University, Cairns, QLD, Australia.
Alan CloughAustralian Institute of Tropical Health and Medicine, James Cook University, Cairns, QLD, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Managing genetic disease using medically assisted reproductive technology is increasingly promoted as a feasible option, given revolutionary advances in genomics. Far less attention has been directed to the issue of whether there is equitable access to this option. Context and circumstance determine equitable access; however, reporting has drawn overwhelmingly from affluent Anglo-western populations in developed countries. The experiences of poorer, less educated subpopulations within affluent countries and populations in less developed countries are underreported. The ability of consumers to understand the opportunities and risks of medically assisted reproductive technology is likewise not well described in the literature despite significant technological complexity and evidence that genetic disease may be overrepresented within some disadvantaged population groups.Equity is achieved by identifying barriers and allocating appropriate resources to enable understanding and access. In the case of utilising medically assisted technology, social and power relationships, regulations, and the presumptions of authority figures and policymakers reduce equitable access. Physical or cultural marginalisation from mainstream health services may result in reduced access to genetic and prenatal testing, in-vitro fertilisation and genetic screening of embryos necessary for medically assisted reproduction. Cost and regulatory frameworks can likewise limit opportunities to engage with services. Moreover, the quality of the information provided to prospective users of the technology and how it is received governs understanding of prevention and inhibits adequately informed choice.Best practice care and adequately informed choice can only be achieved by conscientiously attending to these accessibility issues. Deep engagement with at-risk people and critical reflection on mainstream accepted standpoints is required. This paper outlines issues associated with engaging with medically assisted reproduction encountered by Aboriginal families living with Machado-Joseph Disease in some of the most remote areas of Australia. It is the right of these families to access such technologies regardless of where they live. Current barriers to access raise important questions for service providers with implications for practice as new technologies increasingly become part of standard medical care.

Indexed as

Health Services AccessibilityReproductive Techniques, AssistedAustraliaAustralian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander PeoplesFemaleGenetic Diseases, InbornHealthcare DisparitiesHealth EquityHumansRural PopulationAccessBarriersEquityMachado-Joseph diseaseMedically assisted reproductionRemote Australia

Identifiers

PMID39294722
PMCPMC11409620

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.