MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7028301247

Exploring Canadian genetic healthcare providers’ perspectives on sponsored genetic testing

2024· dissertation· en· W7028301247 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueMspace (University of Manitoba) · 2024
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicProbability and Statistical Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGenetic testingTransparency (behavior)Health careThematic analysisCertificationData sharingPublic healthWorkaround
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sponsored genetic testing (SGT) programs consist of partnerships between clinical genetic testing laboratories and third-party organizations (generally biopharmaceutical companies) to offer genetic testing free of charge to a patient or healthcare system. To date, there is no research surrounding the use of SGT in Canada, or how it is perceived by professionals. This study aims to learn about Canadian genetic healthcare providers’ (CGHPs’) views on SGT, along with their perceived benefits, limitations, and impacts of SGT within the Canadian healthcare system. Certified genetic counsellors, medical geneticists, and laboratory geneticists practicing in Canada were invited to participate in semi-structed interviews. Interviews were recorded over Zoom, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using interpretive description and thematic analysis. Codes were created inductively, and themes emerged across cases to capture participants’ perceptions. Interviews were conducted with 18 CGHPs across six provinces. Some participants were ambivalent about SGT, and others either agreed or disagreed with its use in practice. Perspectives were categorized into four main themes: 1) adequate transparency surrounding data sharing 2) the desire for a workaround to improve access 3) consideration of budgets within a publicly funded healthcare system and 4) perspectives of non-genetics providers using SGT. Proponents noted that transparency regarding data sharing between the genetic testing laboratories and third-party companies was adequate, that SGT could provide increased access to genetic testing, and that SGT can help advocate for enhanced provincial funding of genetic services. Skeptics of SGT mentioned a lack of transparency regarding how patient data is shared and used, that a public system should be able to cover all patients who require genetic testing, and that there is a responsibility to consider how externally funded testing could be detrimental to future budget considerations. All participants had considerations for their non-genetics colleagues ordering SGT. This exploratory study offers insights surrounding CGHPs’ views on SGT. It highlights the benefits and limitations regarding the use of SGT in Canada, along with a unique perspective into the challenges and nuances of using SGT within a publicly funded healthcare system.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.794
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.180
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.128 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it