Disability Experiences and Perspectives Regarding Reproductive Decisions, Parenting, and the Utility of Genetic Services: a Qualitative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Genetic counselors adopt seemingly contradictory roles: advocating for individuals with genetic conditions while offering prenatal diagnosis and the option of selective termination to prevent the birth of a child with a disability. This duality contributes to the tension between the disability and clinical genetics communities. Varying opinions exist amongst the disability community: some value genetic services while others are opposed. However, there is limited research exploring the opinions of individuals with a disability regarding issues related to reproduction and genetic services in the context of personal experience. This exploratory qualitative study involved interviews with seven women and three men who self-identify as having a disability. We sought to gain their perspectives on experiences with disability, thoughts about reproduction and parenting, and perceptions of genetic services. Transcripts of the interviews were analyzed thematically using qualitative content analysis. Data analysis showed that societal views of disability affected the lived experience and impacted reproductive decision-making for those with a disability. It also showed differing interest in genetic services. Concerns about the perceived collective implications of genetic services were also raised. These findings contribute to the understanding of the disability perspective toward reproductive decision-making and genetic services. A further goal is to promote a meaningful dialogue between the genetics and disability communities, with the potential to enhance the genetic and reproductive care provided to individuals with disabilities.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".