ArticleBMC medical genomics2026
Levers and constraints on general practitioners offering and managing reproductive genetic carrier screening in Australian primary care: a rich graphic of the complex context.
Article in BMC medical genomics, 2026. 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Reproductive genetic carrier screening (RGCS) identifies people who have an increased chance of having a child with a serious genetic condition. In Australia, since November 2022, RGCS for three conditions, cystic fibrosis, spinal muscular atrophy, and fragile X syndrome, has been publicly funded via Medicare (Australia's universal health insurance scheme). Therefore, tests are offered at no cost to eligible people and are accessible through general practitioners (GPs), making primary care a key point of access. This study aimed to develop a rich graphic illustrating the ecosystem of offering RGCS in Australian primary care. The three-stage, exploratory, qualitative approach involved: (1) constructing the first draft of the rich graphic using literature, policy documents, and team expertise; (2) conducting semi-structured interviews with eleven key informants representing diverse stakeholders; and (3) conducting a survey with key informants to review the penultimate version and produce the final version. The final rich graphic positioned GPs at the centre of a network of six stakeholder groups: consumers, government, laboratories, professional bodies, healthcare organisations, and consumer support groups. Inductive thematic analysis identified three overarching themes: (1) reinforcing patterns and feedback cycles; (2) structural misalignments and systemic tensions; and (3) emergent adaptations and system responses. Our analysis revealed that several factors influencing GPs' ability to offer RGCS are not isolated but parts of dynamic patterns of linkages, relationships, interactions, interdependencies, feedback loops, and behaviours that generate complex, sometimes unintended and contradictory, system-level effects, collectively shaping the complex system. Using rich graphic methodology revealed chains of interdependencies that would have remained obscured by using traditional linear implementation frameworks.
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.