ArticleHealth affairs scholar2026
Public attitudes toward cascade genetic screening in the United States.
Article in Health affairs scholar, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: After a patient receives genetic test results that indicate an actionable health condition, cascade genetic screening (CGS) is the process of evaluating the patient's relatives for a potentially elevated genetic risk of disease. The United States primarily relies on patients to communicate with their relatives, resulting in suboptimal rates of risk communication, familial genetic testing uptake, and risk-reducing interventions. There is ongoing debate about whether and how best to inform relatives of a potentially increased genetic risk. Methods: We conducted a nationally representative survey of US adults to assess attitudes toward informing at-risk relatives, acceptability of system-mediated communication, and preferences for the patient's role in risk communication. Results: Respondents ( Conclusion: Findings indicate strong public support for sharing genetic risk information within families, alongside clear expectations for patient consent, to guide CGS implementation in the United States.
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.