ArticleJournal of community genetics2024
Engaging communities: A scoping literature review of community-based participatory research in genetics service delivery settings.
Article in Journal of community genetics, 2024. 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.
- Community-Driven Research Priorities for Genetic Counseling: Shaping the Future of Genetic Counseling Research by Centering Multicultural Perspectives.Journal of genetic counseling · 2026Article
- "There's no representation": a qualitative study of attitudes and motivations towards genomic research participation among Australian South Asians.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2026Article
- Integrating genomic medicine into primary care -examining perceptions of community advisory board members.Journal of community genetics · 2026Article
- Engaging migrants and immigrants in genetics research.Nature genetics · 2025Review
- Engaging Chinese and Korean American communities in dementia research: A journey of inclusivity and partnership.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 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
Genetic counseling (GC) services have the potential to improve health outcomes, yet there are documented disparities in the use of GC services among minoritized racial/ethnic populations. Community-based participatory research (CBPR) is an approach to integrate diverse patient perspectives to improve GC services. The objective of this review was to assess the current state of international CBPR within GC and genetics services from 2006 to 2023. Five databases were searched for inclusion criteria: 1) published in 2006 or later; 2) peer-reviewed publication; 3) primary research studies; 4) community-based AND participatory research; 5) focused on GC, clinical genetics, testing, and/or genetic service delivery. Criteria for evaluating CBPR involvement used a synthesis of best processes framework. Screening of 3,824 studies identified 16 papers (n = 12 qualitative; n = 1 quantitative; n = 3 mixed methods). The majority of studies were conducted within the U.S. (n = 12), focused on cancer (n = 5), involved the Asian/Pacific Islander community (n = 8), and centered around genetic education (n = 12). Community partners most frequently were involved in recruitment (n = 12) and results analysis (n = 12) and least involved in research question development (n = 7) and product creation (n = 6). Studies varied substantially in the integration of 9 CBPR gold standard principles with only three studies addressing all nine principles. Few CBPR projects in GC services exist and a lack of guidelines to assess the quality of CBPR methodologies hindered the appraisal of studies. CBPR represents a promising approach to improve GC services and should be explored by genetics service delivery researchers.
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.