Impact of Genetic Testing for Cardiomyopathy on Emotional Well-Being and Family Dynamics: A Study of Parents and Adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Genetic testing is indicated for children with a personal or family history of hereditary cardiomyopathy to determine appropriate management and inform risk stratification for family members. The implications of a positive genetic result for children can potentially impact emotional well-being. Given the nuances of cardiomyopathy genetic testing for minors, this study aimed to understand how parents involve their children in the testing process and investigate the impact of genetic results on family dynamics. Methods: A survey was distributed to participants recruited from the Children’s Cardiomyopathy Foundation and 7 North American sites in the Pediatric Cardiomyopathy Registry. The survey explored adolescent and parent participants’ emotions upon receiving their/their child’s genetic results, parent-child result communication and its impact on family functionality, using the McMaster Family Assessment Device. Results: One hundred sixty-two parents of minors and 48 adolescents who were offered genetic testing for a personal or family history of cardiomyopathy completed the survey. Parents whose child had cardiomyopathy were more likely to disclose positive diagnostic genetic results to their child ( P =0.014). Parents with unaffected children and positive predictive testing results were more likely to experience negative emotions about the result ( P ≤0.001) but also had better family functioning scores than those with negative predictive results ( P =0.019). Most adolescents preferred results communicated directly to the child, but parents were divided about whether their child’s result should first be released to them or their child. Conclusions: These findings have important considerations for how providers structure genetic services for adolescents and facilitate discussion between parents and their children about results.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".