Observational studyEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2025
What does a consent conversation for whole genome sequencing look like in the NHS Genomic Medicine Service? An observational study.
Observational study in European journal of human genetics : EJHG, 2025. 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.
- Challenges associated with disclosing results from whole genome sequencing to diagnose paediatric rare diseases: analysis of parent-clinician interactions.Journal of medical genetics · 2026Article
- Genomic sequencing technologies for rare disease in mainstream healthcare: the current state of implementation.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2025Review
- Consent for genomic sequencing: a conversation, not just a form.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2025Article
- What's new in April's EJHG?European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2025Article
- Parental knowledge, attitudes, satisfaction and decisional conflict regarding whole genome sequencing in the Genomic Medicine Service: a multisite survey study in England.Journal of medical genetics · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Patient choice consent for whole genome sequencing (WGS) through the Genomic Medicine Service in England covers consent to diagnostic testing and an invitation to the National Genomic Research Library (NGRL). Little is known about what consent conversations for WGS look like in practice. We audio-recorded and analysed the content and structure of consent appointments (n = 26) between healthcare professionals (HCPs) and parents of children with rare disease across seven NHS Trusts. Appointments frequently covered the potential findings from testing, implications for family members, and DNA storage, but often omitted that data may be reanalysed in the future if a diagnosis is not made. Consent to the NGRL was typically sought during the same appointment; these discussions varied in content, but frequently included a background to the NGRL and data security. HCPs often tempered expectations around what WGS can achieve and asked questions to clarify parents' understanding, but less commonly elicited parents' values and concerns. Administrative tasks were time-consuming, but took less time when consent was recorded digitally. Future training should emphasise how to elicit patients' values and concerns. Digital infrastructure and hiring roles such as genomic associates to support consent may be important strategies to meet the workload demands of WGS.
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.