ArticleJournal of genetic counseling2025
Narratives before numbers: Reimagining conversations about race, ethnicity, and ancestry information in genetic counseling practice.
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.
- Narratives before numbers: Reimagining conversations about race, ethnicity, and ancestry information in genetic counseling practice.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
As genomic testing becomes more common, it is essential to re-examine practical and ethical arguments for and against eliciting race, ethnicity, and ancestry (REA) information from patients as a default practice in genetic counseling. In this article, we evaluate current and historical reasons for using REA information in clinical genetics encounters. We argue that in many, if not most, cases, the value of this practice for patient risk assessment and the establishment of test eligibility is questionable. This does not mean we do not see any value in the practice of discussing REA at all. Rather, we propose that discussions about REA should be patient-led and relevant to discussions about their experiences, values, and goals. To facilitate this change, we offer some practical reasons for limiting the default practice of collecting REA information in genetic counseling. Additionally, we evaluate the ethical acceptability of this practice, anchoring our ethical analysis in three considerations: (1) the impact of the use of REA information in determining eligibility for genetic testing and assessing genetic risk; (2) the influence of inequitable genomic database representation; and (3) the effect of discussing REA on the therapeutic relationship. Our analysis of these considerations leads us to argue for a patient-centered, narrative framework that treats the collection of REA information as a way of encouraging patients to articulate the relevance of these identities to their counseling goals, if and in which context they choose.
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.