ArticleJournal of genetic counseling2025
Perceived utility of genetic carrier screening in a diverse patient population.
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 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.
- Carrier screening and genetic counseling in high-consanguinity populations: a narrative review.Journal of community genetics · 2026Review
- Perceived utility of genetic carrier screening in a diverse patient population.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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Current reproductive guidelines call for offering expanded carrier screening (ECS) for genetic conditions. Currently available panels can include screening for carrier status of tens to hundreds of autosomal recessive and/or X-linked conditions. Clinical utility is based on alterations to reproductive decision-making, but study cohorts supporting the utility of ECS largely consist of individuals of European ancestry who are highly educated, of high income, and who often receive preconception counseling. There is a lack of research on the views of patients from diverse backgrounds. Therefore, we aimed to assess and compare perceptions of the utility of ECS and targeted carrier screening (TCS) in an ethnically, economically, and educationally diverse population. We administered a survey to obstetrics and gynecology patients in Houston, Texas in the fall of 2022. Questions regarding genetic testing, reproductive management, and demographics were asked. Of the respondents who wanted children in the future, expressed interest in knowing reproductive genetic risks, and would consider using this information to change reproductive plans (114/186, 61%), 100 indicated their test preference, with 70 (70%) preferring ECS and 30 (30%) preferring TCS. There was no statistical difference in test preference by race and ethnicity, education, income, or insurance. Eighty-one of the 114 participants provided feedback on the utility of CS, and 74/81 (91%) of them found it useful. Only 30/81 (37%) of them, however, stated that they would change their reproductive plans if identified as at-risk. Participants were more likely to change their reproductive plans if they were not pregnant (OR = 3.63; 95 CI = 1.26-10.47), had not had prior genetic testing (OR = 3.03; 95 CI = 1.02-8.95), or had higher income (OR = 1.25; 95 CI = 1.00-1.55). This heterogeneous cohort expands upon data from previous homogeneous cohorts assessing CS utility. While attitudes toward CS were favorable, its perceived utility was lower. Information on reproductive management options should be provided to patients in the preconception period, and access to reproductive services must be improved for those with lower incomes. Further insight on the perspectives of diverse populations is imperative to defining the utility of carrier screening most accurately and equitably.
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.