ArticleJournal of genetic counseling2026
Understanding the decision of parents to opt-out of medically actionable secondary findings offered through genome sequencing.
Article in Journal of genetic counseling, 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
37 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Genomic sequencing (GS) for patients and families with rare disease creates the opportunity for precise diagnosis as well as the option to learn about medically actionable secondary findings (SF). Debate persists internationally on how to manage the analysis and disclosure of SF, especially in settings where service delivery models for GS are still in development and outcomes are preliminary. This study aimed to understand parents' decision to opt-out of learning about their child's SF for adult-onset conditions and whether an SF identified in a child was inherited. All children received GS as part of their diagnostic work-up for a rare disease. Sixteen semistructured interviews were conducted with parents. Guided by a qualitative approach, interviews were analyzed with inductive content analysis. Participants reported that the timing of decision-making, competing priorities, anticipated adverse psychological outcomes, and health-related beliefs and worldviews contributed to their decision to opt-out of receiving SF. An emphasis was placed on a preference for flexible SF delivery models to aid in reducing the burden of SF decision-making at the time of indication-based testing. Genetic service delivery models that separate the timing of decisions about indication-based test results and SF may address patient preferences. Findings from this work may inform clinical practice and policy in jurisdictions where SF delivery models are still being developed and optimized.
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.