ArticleEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2025
Health professionals contacting patients' relatives directly about genetic risk (with patient consent): current clinical practice and perspectives.
Article 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 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.
- Maximizing cascade genetic testing for disease prevention through direct notification of at-risk relatives.Nature medicine · 2025Article
- Clinicians' discretion to contact patients' at-risk relatives about their genetic risk: new guidance from Australia's privacy regulator provides timely clarification.The Medical journal of Australia · 2025Article
- Patients' perspectives regarding health professionals contacting their relatives about genetic risk directly (with patient consent).European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2025Article
- What's new in April's EJHG?European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Genetic testing can provide risk information to individuals and their blood relatives. Cascade testing uptake by at-risk relatives is <50%, with suboptimal family communication a key barrier to risk notification. The practice of health professionals (HPs) directly contacting relatives (with patient consent) to assist with risk notification has significant international support, but little is known about the practices and views of HPs in Australia. We surveyed Australian clinical genetics and laboratory services (public and private) which offer genetic testing of relevance to relatives, about current practices and views. Of 104 services invited, 78 responded to our online survey (75.0% response rate; clinical n = 59/81; laboratory n = 19/23). Most clinical services (83.3%) agreed it would be beneficial to contact at-risk relatives directly. However, the majority (80.4%) do not routinely contact relatives directly, with inadequate resources (80.0%) and privacy concerns (62.2%) cited as primary reasons. If direct contact methods were used, most clinical services (65.4%) prefer a letter which includes specific information about the genetic condition. Most clinical (86.5%) and laboratory (88.2%) services saw benefit in the development of a national clinical guideline for HPs regarding direct contact. This study confirms that most clinical genetics services would see benefits to being able to assist patients by contacting relatives directly about their potential genetic risk. Our findings highlight the need for a national clinical guideline clarifying HPs' legal and privacy obligations, and provide an opportunity for clinical services to reconsider their allocation of resources to prioritise assisting patients with risk notification.
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.