ArticleJournal of community genetics2025
Empowerment of parents of infants with congenital heart disease after rapid genome sequencing : April 11, 2025, revised June 20, 2025.
Article in Journal of community genetics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite rapid genome sequencing (rGS) being utilized as a first-tier genetic test for infants with congenital heart disease (CHD), little is known about its impact on parental empowerment.
methodsTo address this gap, parents of infants with CHD (≤ 1 year old at the time of inpatient rGS) were asked to participate in an online survey, which measured empowerment using an adapted version of the Genomic Empowerment Scale (GEmS). The scale consists of four subscales that measure emotional management, meaning making, seeking information and support, and implications and planning surrounding a child's diagnosis. Subscale scores were standardized for comparison and coded as above (+) or below (-) the mean. Based on the standardized score pattern (+/-) in each subscale, an empowerment profile was assigned to each participant. Empowerment profiles were analyzed for trends based on CHD type (left ventricular outflow tract obstruction (LVOTO) vs. non-LVOTO), genetic test result type, and number of genetics visits.
resultsThe most common empowerment profile was the 'Engaged but Worried Planner' (15/37 = 41%). This empowerment profile was more common in parents of infants with non-LVOTO CHD (73.3%) than those with LVOTO CHD (26.7%). Conversely, there was little difference in empowerment profile type between rGS result type. Parents whose child had ≤ 3 genetics visits displayed the 'Engaged but Worried' profile most often, whereas those with ≥ 4 visits had more even distributions between profiles.
conclusionUnderstanding empowerment profiles in this population may help guide practitioners to empower parent decision-making, emotional management, and planning for the future of their child.
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.