ArticleJournal of genetic counseling2025
Laboratory and clinical genetic Counselor's perspectives on the reporting of personal health risks on carrier screening reports.
Article in Journal of genetic counseling, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Laboratory and clinical genetic Counselor's perspectives on the reporting of personal health risks on carrier screening reports.Journal of genetic counseling · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Carrier screening estimates the risk for an individual to be a carrier of an autosomal recessive or X-linked genetic condition. Incidentally, carrier screening may reveal personal health risks (PHR). Carrier results with PHR are "heterozygous variants which carry health risks similar to or unrelated to the disease caused by variants in a compound heterozygous, homozygous, or hemizygous configuration" (Sagaser et al., 2023, Journal of Genetic Counseling, 32, 540). Despite previous research identifying the carrier screening laboratory report as the most frequently utilized resource when providing post-test counseling for PHR, genetic counselors' preferences and expectations regarding PHR reporting have not been investigated. We developed a 20-item survey using five-point Likert scales and free-response questions related to the format and content of a laboratory report when PHR is identified. Participants were recruited through the NSGC Student Research Survey Listserv and included 48 clinical and eight laboratory genetic counselors. Most participants had neutral (39%) or low satisfaction (48%) with the current reporting of PHR. Participant-free responses highlighted a lack of consistency in how PHR is reported. Most participants (79%) agreed that reports should include clear management recommendations regarding PHR follow-up for providers, such as suggestions for specialty referrals or professional guidelines relevant to risks associated with the specific gene. There was a wide variation in responses regarding whether patients should be able to opt-out of PHR information on carrier screening panels. Free responses collected suggest the need for further investigation and clarification regarding an opt-out policy concerning logistics and consent. PHR for carriers is a nuanced topic, and reporting these risks requires careful consideration. The results of this study provide guidance as to how genetic counselors desire to see PHR reported on carrier reports.
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.