ArticleBMC medical genomics2026
North Carolina primary care provider perspectives on expanded genomic screening in children.
Article in BMC medical genomics, 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
- Update of
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundExpanding pediatric genomic screening beyond current newborn screening presents both opportunities and challenges to primary care providers. We are developing a novel paradigm called Age-Based Genomic Screening (ABGS), which will incorporate targeted genomic sequencing for select, highly actionable genetic conditions into routine care at relevant time-points throughout childhood.
methodsWe disseminated an electronic survey to family medicine and pediatric primary care clinicians in North Carolina to identify potential ABGS implementation determinants and strategies to address them. Survey items were modeled on constructs previously identified as important to genomic medicine and assessed perceived utility, benefits, barriers, and facilitators of implementing targeted genomic screening in pediatric primary care. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and content analysis, as appropriate.
resultsA total of 93 individuals completed the survey. Over 85% of respondents agreed that genomic screening was important and impactful in their patient care but about 30% lacked confidence in their ability to implement it in their practice. The most cited benefits of the ABGS program were related to readiness for implementation and the evidence, strength, and quality of the intervention. The most concerning barriers included cost for patients and available resources, with 87% and 75% of respondents having extreme or moderate concern for these barriers, respectively.
conclusionsOur findings have implications both for the design of the ABGS pilot program and directions for future research in genomic implementation. In particular, the blueprint for the pilot program must include specific plans for ensuring primary care providers have the time and resources available for shared decision making with their patients about engaging in genomic screening. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY: Clinical trial number: not applicable
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.