Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39702591›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2025

Patients' perspectives regarding health professionals contacting their relatives about genetic risk directly (with patient consent).

Jane Tiller, Keri Finlay, Evanthia O Madelli, Melissa Monnik, Matilda R Jackson, Nicola Poplawski, Tiffany Boughtwood, Kristen J Nowak, Margaret Otlowski

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. What's new in April's EJHG?European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2025
    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

9 authors.

Jane TillerAustralian Genomics, Parkville, VIC, Australia. jane.tiller@monash.edu.ORCID 0000-0003-3906-6632
Keri FinlayAustralian Genomics, Parkville, VIC, Australia.
Evanthia O MadelliAustralian Genomics, Parkville, VIC, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-2128-0828
Melissa MonnikAdult Genetics Unit, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Matilda R JacksonAustralian Genomics, Parkville, VIC, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-7547-7653
Nicola PoplawskiAdult Genetics Unit, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, SA, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-9372-3325
Tiffany BoughtwoodAustralian Genomics, Parkville, VIC, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-9634-3731
Kristen J NowakOffice of Population Health Genomics, WA Department of Health, East Perth, WA, Australia.
Margaret OtlowskiCentre for Law and Genetics, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS, Australia.

Funding

Department of Health | National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) 2025900
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Genetic testing of blood relatives of individuals at high risk of dominant conditions has significant preventive health benefits. However, cascade testing uptake is <50%. Research shows increased testing uptake when health professionals (HPs) contact at-risk relatives directly, with patient consent. Despite international support, this is not standard practice in Australia. We aimed to gather perspectives of genetic testing patients about direct-contact methods. Using an online survey, we surveyed Australian adults with genetic results of relevance for relatives, including patients who (i) self-categorised as being directly contacted by a clinical service, (ii) self-categorised as being referred by a HP, and (iii) received genetic results through a research study. Overall, 442 patients responded (clinical n = 363; research n = 79). Clinical patients self-categorised as 49.0% directly-contacted and 51.0% referred. Overall, the majority of patients had no privacy concerns about direct-contact methods (direct-contact 97%; referred 77%; research 76%). Less than 5% of the combined cohort (n = 19/442) reported significant concerns. The most prevalent concerns were the need for consent to provide HPs with relatives' contact details, and a patient preference to notify relatives before HP contact. Other key findings include preferences about contact methods, including that most patients who received a letter from a genetics service preferred a letter with specific information about the familial genetic condition (n = 141/149; 94.6%) than one with general information about genetic risk. Our findings indicate Australian patients support HPs using direct-contact methods to assist with risk communication to relatives. Findings also identify concerns to be addressed in the design of direct-contact programs.

Indexed as

FamilyGenetic CounselingGenetic Predisposition to DiseaseGenetic TestingHealth PersonnelInformed ConsentAdultAgedAustraliaFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID39702591
PMCPMC11986157

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.