Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42014543›Full record

ArticleJournal of community genetics2026

Routes to expanded carrier screening in the UK: The perspectives of professional stakeholders.

Cathy Herbrand, Kriss Fearon, Pascal Borry, Lorraine Culley, Nicky Hudson, Zosia Miedzybrodzka, Sarah Norcross, Bronwyn Parry, Eva Van Steijvoort

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Cathy HerbrandCentre for Reproduction Research, De Montfort University, 0.23 Edith Murphy House, Leicester, LE1 9BH, UK. cathy.herbrand@dmu.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9241-577X
Kriss FearonCentre for Reproduction Research, De Montfort University, 0.23 Edith Murphy House, Leicester, LE1 9BH, UK.
Pascal BorryDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Centre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, KU Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer 35/3 (box 7001), Leuven, 3000, Belgium.
Lorraine CulleyCentre for Reproduction Research, De Montfort University, 0.23 Edith Murphy House, Leicester, LE1 9BH, UK.
Nicky HudsonCentre for Reproduction Research, De Montfort University, 0.23 Edith Murphy House, Leicester, LE1 9BH, UK.
Zosia MiedzybrodzkaClinical Genetics Centre, University of Aberdeen & NHS Grampian, Ashgrove House Aberdeen Royal Infirmary Foresterhill Campus, Aberdeen, AB25 2ZA, UK. zosia@abdn.ac.uk.
Sarah NorcrossProgress Educational Trust, 140 Gray's Inn Road, London, WC1X 8AX, UK.
Bronwyn ParryANU College of Arts and Social Science, The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, 2600, Australia.
Eva Van SteijvoortDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Centre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, KU Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer 35/3 (box 7001), Leuven, 3000, Belgium.

Funding

Economic and Social Research Council ES/W012456/1
6 · The paper itself

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

PMID42014543
PMCPMC13100082

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.