Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41288026›Full record

ArticleJournal of genetic counseling2025

Perceived utility of genetic carrier screening in a diverse patient population.

Jack A Colleran, Meagan Choates, Syed Hashmi, Brittanie Shelton, Aranza Gonzalez Cendejas, Angela Haynes Burgess, Blair K Stevens

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Jack A ColleranM Health Fairview Maternal Fetal Medicine, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.ORCID 0009-0008-0011-4178
Meagan ChoatesThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center UTHealth Houston Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Houston, Texas, USA.
Syed HashmiThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center UTHealth Houston Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Houston, Texas, USA.
Brittanie SheltonThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center UTHealth Houston Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Houston, Texas, USA.
Aranza Gonzalez CendejasThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center UTHealth Houston Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Houston, Texas, USA.
Angela Haynes BurgessDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, UTHealth Houston McGovern Medical School, Houston, Texas, USA.
Blair K StevensThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center UTHealth Houston Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Houston, Texas, USA.

Funding

National Society of Genetic CounselorsThe University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston
6 · The paper itself

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

Genetic Carrier ScreeningGenetic TestingAdultFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSurveys and Questionnairesattitudescarrier testingdecision‐makingdiversityequityutility

Identifiers

PMID41288026
PMCPMC12645425

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.