Support to caregivers who have received genetic information about neurodevelopmental and psychiatric vulnerability in their young children: A narrative review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Diagnosis of pathogenic genetic variants associated with neurodevelopmental and psychiatric disorders (NPDs) is increasingly made early in life. This narrative review focuses on the need for, and provision of, psychological supports following genetic diagnosis. We conducted a literature search of publications on how caregivers are informed about the NPD vulnerability associated with genetic variants, challenges and unmet needs when receiving this information, and whether psychological supports are provided. Given its early recognition, the 22q11.2 deletion has been studied thoroughly for two decades, providing generalizable insights. This literature indicates the complex caregivers' needs related to learning about potential NPD vulnerabilities associated with a genetic variant, include how to communicate the diagnosis, how to identify early signs of NPDs, how to deal with stigma and a lack of medical expertise outside of specialized genetics clinics. With one exception, no publications describe psychotherapeutic support provided to parents. In the absence of support, caregivers struggle with several unmet needs regarding potential longer-term NPD implications of a genetic diagnosis. The field needs to go beyond explaining genetic diagnoses and associated vulnerabilities, and develop approaches to support caregivers with communicating and managing NPD implications across the child's lifespan.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".