Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40179849›Full record

ArticlePublic health genomics2025

Health System-Led Early Consent and Direct Contact of At-Risk Relatives: Pilot Study Results.

Nora B Henrikson, Aaron Scrol, Jamilyn M Zepp, Melissa L Anderson, Paula R Blasi, John J Ewing, Jane Grafton, James D Ralston, Stephanie M Fullerton, Kathleen A Leppig

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

10 authors.

Nora B HenriksonKaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Aaron ScrolKaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Jamilyn M ZeppDepartment of Translational and Applied Genomics, Kaiser Permanente Northwest Center for Health Research, Portland, Oregon, USA.
Melissa L AndersonKaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Paula R BlasiKaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington, USA.
John J EwingKaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Jane GraftonKaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington, USA.
James D RalstonKaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Stephanie M FullertonDepartment of Bioethics and Humanities, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Kathleen A LeppigDivision of Medical Genetics, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington, USA.

Funding

Health care system-led familial risk notification: design and ethical assessmentR01HG010144 · NHGRI · KAISER FOUNDATION RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI BLASI, PAULA RAE · 2018 to 2023
$2.1M
NHGRI NIH HHS R01 HG010144
6 · The paper itself

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

FamilyGenetic CounselingGenetic Predisposition to DiseaseInformed ConsentAdultAgedFemaleGenetic TestingHumansMaleMiddle AgedPilot ProjectsProspective StudiesCascade testingFamily implicationsHereditary cancerRisk assessment

Identifiers

PMID40179849
PMCPMC12074871

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.