ReviewEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2026
Scoping review and recommendations for development and delivery of education resources for reproductive genetic carrier screening.
Review in European journal of human genetics : EJHG, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Reproductive genetic carrier screening (RGCS) is increasingly available and publicly funded in some jurisdictions. There is a pressing need for user-centric resources to support decision-making. We conducted a scoping review using the Joanna Briggs Institute framework with the aim of mapping studies published between 2014 and 2025 examining individual and reproductive couple perspectives on RGCS. Searches were conducted in Medline, Embase, PubMed and Web of Science. Studies were categorised by design and descriptive characteristics. Eighty-nine studies were included. Research documented motivations for accepting or declining RGCS and the interplay of systemic, structural and personal factors related to decision-making. Investigation of educational needs emphasized moving beyond clinical framing to reflect experiential knowledge. Multiple touchpoints were identified across the service implementation pathway, revealing opportunities for fit-for-purpose resource integration; and perspectives from those with experiential knowledge of genetic conditions added unique insights. However, population diversity was low, with limited research from rural, regional and/or remote locations, diverse family structures, people with intellectual disability or neurodiversity and cultural and linguistically diverse communities. This review maps individual and reproductive couple perspectives on RGCS and offers six expert recommendations for resource development. A key call to action is to engage priority populations in future RGCS research to avoid deepening health inequities.
Identifiers
42380256What 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.