ArticleJournal of genetic counseling2026
The Recommendation Paradox: Perspectives on Genetic Testing in Huntington's Disease Families.
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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Huntington's disease (HD) families face complex decisions about predictive genetic testing and reproductive options, including preimplantation genetic testing (PGT), and particularly PGT for Monogenic Disorders (PGT-M). We examined attitudes toward genetic testing and reproductive options across affected groups within HD families (e.g., people with HD, spouse/caregivers, and at-risk family members), in a healthcare system with full funding for genetic services. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 51 participants (17 people with HD, 20 at-risk relatives, 14 spouses/partners), recruited from the National HD Clinic in Tel Aviv, Israel. Framework Analysis was employed to enable systematic comparison across groups. Three themes emerged from the analysis: "Surprised by HD" revealed that family members were often unaware of genetic risk despite predictable inheritance, reflecting patterns of nondisclosure and misdiagnosis; "Truth or luck" captured divergent attitudes toward predictive testing, with some participants advocating for early knowledge while others emphasized the psychological burden of knowing in the absence of a cure. Together, these themes formed the context for a central finding: "The recommendation paradox", a striking pattern where individuals who avoided or regretted personal predictive testing nonetheless strongly endorsed reproductive options for offspring, a tension that manifested differently across groups depending on their relationship to HD. The recommendation paradox reveals ethical tensions between reproductive autonomy and emerging expectations of genetic responsibility. This pattern persists even when economic barriers are removed, demonstrating that psychological factors remain primary determinants of testing uptake. Genetic counseling should explicitly address divergent attitudes toward personal versus offspring testing, recognizing that support for prevention does not necessarily indicate readiness for personal testing.
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.