ArticleEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2026
Why is family disclosure of genetic risk so difficult? A collaborative analysis of 685 rare-disease patient experiences.
Article 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Difficulties of sharing information about genetic risks, for medical purposes, with family members are well known to patients with rare genetic diseases and healthcare professionals. To understand the mechanisms underlying the difficulties associated with the family disclosure of genetic risk (FDGR) process, an online questionnaire survey was designed in collaboration with French patient associations, healthcare professionals and academics. 595 patients with various rare diseases, or their relatives, who had an experience of FDGR, reported 685 FDGR events. Using hierarchical clustering on the principal components (HCPC) of a multiple correspondence analysis (MCA), these 685 experiences were divided into three clusters, representing 347 (Cluster 1 50.7%), 175 (Cluster 2 25.5%) and 163 (Cluster 3 23.8%) FDGR events, respectively. In cluster 1, the FDGR events described were considered generally satisfactory. In cluster 2 and cluster 3 (approximately 50% of FDGR), the FDGR events described were considered unsatisfactory, both in terms of information transmission and psychosocial damage, mainly due to a poor understanding of the information to be conveyed and/or low motivation, particularly in families experiencing relationship difficulties. However, other factors, such as certain characteristics of the disease or the type of healthcare professional involved in the process, do not appear to differ significantly between the three clusters. Our results, obtained through a collaborative approach, provide a basis for the collective development of tools (i) aimed at improving patients' understanding of genetic information and their motivation to disclose it to family members, but if this proves impossible or too difficult, (ii) to delegate disclosure to healthcare professionals.
Identifiers
42629422What 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.