ArticleJournal of community genetics2026
Routes to expanded carrier screening in the UK: The perspectives of professional stakeholders.
Article in Journal of community genetics, 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Expanded carrier screening (ECS) is a genetic test, increasingly used before conception, to assess prospective parents’ risk of transmitting autosomal recessive and X-linked pathogenic genetic variants to future children. This paper is the first to describe the distinct coexisting routes to ECS in the UK, and to consider key professional stakeholders’ perspectives on the usefulness, advantages and challenges of these distinctive routes in a national context where ECS is almost exclusively available commercially with little regulatory oversight. Data are based on an extensive systematic search and mapping of ECS providers offering tests in the UK, and interviews with 38 stakeholders involved in the practice, provision, or governance of genomic reproductive technologies in the UK. This study identifies and describes three distinct, parallel routes through which ECS is taken up: unassisted conception, assisted conception (with couple’s own gametes), and assisted conception using donated gametes. We found that these routes served very different needs for clinicians, and identified inconsistency across the routes, with significant variations in cost, access, panel composition, and levels of support for test takers, especially in direct-to-consumer testing. These challenges are compounded by the absence of clear regulatory oversight. Findings suggest that ECS should not be treated as a single, uniform practice. Rather, its framing, implementation and perceived value must be understood in relation to the specific institutional, clinical, and social contexts in which it is situated. This contextual understanding is particularly important for informing the regulation and guidance of the distinct ECS offerings.
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.