ArticleEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2025
Patients' perspectives regarding health professionals contacting their relatives about genetic risk directly (with patient consent).
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.
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.
- Patients' and family members' experiences with cascade testing for Lynch syndrome in the USA: a qualitative interview study.Journal of community genetics · 2026Article
- 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
- Health professionals contacting patients' relatives directly about genetic risk (with patient consent): current clinical practice and perspectives.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
9 authors.
Funding
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
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.