ArticleJournal of genetic counseling2025
Cardiovascular genetic counselor decision making about discussing life insurance with patients.
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.
- Cardiovascular genetic counselor decision making about discussing life insurance with patients.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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Genetic counselors (GCs) educate patients about the benefits, risks, and limitations of genetic testing. The regulatory environment governing the use of genetic data in life insurance is not uniform internationally or within the United States (US). This multinational survey assessed how cardiovascular GCs incorporate the topic of life insurance (LI) into patient discussions. An online survey was distributed to GCs currently providing care to patients with non-syndromic cardiovascular disease. Brief clinical scenarios were included to avoid participants considering ambiguous or marginal phenotypes. Respondents were 121 cardiovascular GCs from five countries. Patient phenotype was the strongest indicator of whether GCs engaged in LI discussion. For phenotype-negative pediatric and adult patient scenarios, 62% and 74% of participants would discuss LI. For phenotype-positive pediatric and adult patient scenarios, 29% and 39% of participants would discuss LI. Non-U.S. participants were more likely to discuss LI with phenotype-positive patients than U.S. participants (61% vs. 33%, p = 0.005). Participants seeing primarily adult patients were more likely to discuss LI than those seeing primarily pediatric patients, for both pediatric (44% vs. 12%, p = 0.003) and adult phenotype-positive scenarios (46% vs. 17%, p = 0.008). Most participants would discuss LI with family variant testing (91%). Many participants reported patients declining genetic testing due to fear of genetic discrimination (77%) and 21% reported patients who were denied LI due to a genetic test result. Insufficient time was an important reported reason to not discuss LI (31%). Most participants reported learning about LI considerations in graduate education and reported confidence in their knowledge and ability to learn about related laws. Patient phenotype was the primary driver of whether cardiovascular GCs discussed life insurance implications of genetic testing with their patients, regardless of the age of the patient or the nationality of the genetic counselor. This study is the first to assess this nuanced aspect of cardiovascular genetic counseling and may support GC practice decisions and education.
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.