ArticleBMJ open2026
Scoping review of Australian prioritisation frameworks impacting consumer access to clinical genetics: protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionTimely access to care is critical, yet prolonged waiting lists across healthcare systems cause avoidable harm and inequity, visible to clinicians who experience moral distress when patients wait unsafely. While equity is embedded in policy, performance metrics may obscure these realities. Clinical genetics exemplifies the issue: delays in assessment, diagnosis and reproductive planning are compounded by inconsistent prioritisation processes across states and subspecialties. There is no national consensus on urgency criteria, and frameworks often overlook consumer values such as timeliness and psychosocial support. Innovations in genomics have helped some high-acuity groups but risk leaving routine and preventative care further behind. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This scoping review will map prioritisation frameworks across Australian clinical genetics services. Following Joanna Briggs Institute guidance and reported according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis extension for Scoping Reviews, we will include tools, policies and documents describing prioritisation approaches in Australian public genetics services. Grey-literature sources including health departments, genomics programmes and professional bodies will be systematically searched. Records will be managed in NVivo, and two reviewers will independently apply eligibility criteria. A standardised data-charting form will capture framework characteristics, purpose, referral criteria, implementation and consumer-facing dimensions. A critical deductive appraisal, informed by the Health Equity Impact Assessment tool, will examine potential differential impacts on consumers. Findings will be synthesised descriptively and mapped across system levels.This review will provide an evidence-informed overview of prioritisation approaches in Australian clinical genetics, identify variability and equity implications across patient groups and care pathways, and support more consistent, transparent and consumer-centred models of care. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval has been granted by the Macquarie University Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC Reference no: 520262049067182). Contact email: ethics.secretariat@mq.edu.au Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publication, conference presentations and professional forums, and will inform clinical governance and risk documentation advocating for service development at a tertiary referral hospital in Australia. REGISTRATION: Cormack MC, Braithwaite J, Long J. A Scoping Review of Australian Prioritisation Frameworks Impacting Consumer Access to Clinical Genetics (Internet). OSF; 2026. Available from: osf.io/py8gm.
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.