ArticlePublic health genomics2025
Health System-Led Early Consent and Direct Contact of At-Risk Relatives: Pilot Study Results.
Article in Public health genomics, 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.
- Evaluation of Costs, Efficiency and Performance of a Pilot Genetic Testing Traceback Program for Ovarian Cancer.Cancers · 2026Article
- Public attitudes toward cascade genetic screening in the United States.Health affairs scholar · 2026Article
- Communication With Clinicians and Relatives About Cascade Genetic Testing in Cancer Patients With Germline Pathogenic Variants.JCO precision oncology · 2026Article
- "I Didn't Have to Worry about It": Patient and Family Experiences with Health System Involvement in Notifying Relatives of Genetic Test Results.Public health genomics · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionAt-risk relatives of probands with genetic variants associated with hereditary cancer risk should receive cascade genetic testing. In the USA, probands are expected to notify their own at-risk relatives, but many relatives never learn of their risk, representing missed opportunity to reduce morbidity and mortality associated with hereditary cancers. Direct contact of relatives could reach relatives not contacted by the proband. We conducted a single-arm, prospective pilot evaluation of a direct contact intervention based on patient and family preferences. Here, we report the study's quantitative results, measured by proband and relative participation in the intervention follow-up survey.
methodsWe recruited adults receiving genetic counseling for inherited cancer risk at one US integrated health system. A genetic counselor offered to contact at-risk relatives. We surveyed probands and relatives at study enrollment and 6-8 weeks and evaluated administrative data to assess the program's outreach to probands and relatives, its acceptability, and its limited efficacy.
resultsWe approached 148 probands before their genetic counseling appointment. Fifty-five (37%) consented to study participation. Of these, 31 completed genetic testing, 29 of whom provided consent to contact 101 relatives. Forty-four percent (n = 45) of relatives consented to be contacted by the study genetic counselor. Acceptability was high for both groups and no harms were reported. All relatives reached (n = 43) received their proband's test results, including 6 pathogenic/likely pathogenic findings.
conclusionA direct contact program was acceptable, reached at-risk relatives, and communicated proband test results. Direct contact with early consent of relatives holds promise for future research.
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.