ArticleJournal of community genetics2026
How parents and community care professionals use a genetic diagnosis to inform care: expanding the concept of utility.
Article in Journal of community genetics, 2026. 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.
- Caring for Rare Genetic Disease: A Vision for the Future.Journal of genetic counseling · 2026Article
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
Research on genomic testing outcomes for children with neurodevelopmental conditions often emphasizes clinical and personal utility, but rarely considers how a genomic diagnosis impacts care from non-physician community-based professionals such as those in private practice, early intervention, or school settings. Therefore, this study explored how caregivers and community care professionals use a genomic diagnosis to inform care. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 23 caregivers of children with a genomic diagnosis and 30 community care professionals providing care to the child. Directed and summative content analysis was performed. Reported impacts included (1) improved care provision, (2) informed future planning, (3) enhanced social and community support, (4) enhanced understanding, (5) increased access to therapy-related services and equipment, (6) improved service quality and 5) elevated patient advocacy and engagement. Potential disutility arose from limited diagnostic information, provider knowledge gaps, insurance denials, and provider fear of treating rare conditions. A key neutral/mixed finding was that the diagnosis did not always impact care. Barriers to potential utility included financial burden, confusion about next steps, provider knowledge gaps, and lack of evidence-based guidance for rare diagnoses. Findings highlight that caregivers and community professionals may experience impacts from a genomic diagnosis (positive, negative, or neutral) that are understudied in empirical research, potentially because traditional concepts of utility fail to incorporate these domains. Broadening this conceptual framing could inform empirical research focused on identifying these effects and informing potential interventions. Further work is needed to characterize and quantify genomic test utility and disutility across diverse contexts.
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.