ArticleBMJ paediatrics open2025
Mainstreaming genomics in the National Health Service in England: a survey to understand preparedness and confidence among paediatricians.
Article in BMJ paediatrics open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Challenges associated with disclosing results from whole genome sequencing to diagnose paediatric rare diseases: analysis of parent-clinician interactions.Journal of medical genetics · 2026Article
- Exomes in Paediatrics: Co-Design and Implementation of Interventions to Support Paediatricians to Provide Genomic Care.Journal of paediatrics and child health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe National Health Service in the UK is the first national healthcare system to offer genomic sequencing for rare disease diagnosis as routine care. Non-genetic medical specialists, including paediatricians, can now request genomic testing for certain clinical indications. The primary purpose of this study was to evaluate the preparedness and confidence of paediatricians providing genomic sequencing in England. In addition, we assessed current practice, perceived utility of testing, barriers and enablers, prior genomics education and training preferences.
methodsA 26-item electronic survey for completion by paediatric specialists. Participants were recruited through national associations and a conference. Quantitative items were analysed using descriptive and inferential statistics. Open-ended question responses were analysed by qualitative content analysis.
results157 responses were included in the analysis. Only 49.0% reported feeling prepared for mainstreaming despite 75.0% reporting they had requested testing in the past 12 months, 47.7% indicating they had returned genomic sequencing results and 67.1% feeling genomic testing was useful. Mean confidence scores were lowest for tasks including using human phenotype ontology terminology on test request forms (3.9/10), interpreting genomic test results (4.8/10), discussing complex genomic results with patients and families (4.3/10) and integrating test results into patient care (4.7/10). Significantly higher average ranked genomic confidence was identified among those who had requested testing in the last 12 months compared with those who had not (Z=5.063, p<0.001, r=0.412). The most frequent barriers to mainstreaming were lack of training and knowledge (43.3%), determining patient eligibility (28.0%), lack of time (27.4%) and confidence (25.5%). Webinars (48.4%), followed by continued professional development meetings and/or conferences (38.9%), were the preferred mode of training.
conclusionsOur data suggest that preparedness and confidence among paediatricians in genomics is currently lacking. Support from clinical genetics services, simplified referral forms and webinar training sessions could improve current practice.
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.