ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)1999
Computer support for recording and interpreting family histories of breast and ovarian cancer in primary care (RAGs): qualitative evaluation with simulated patients.
Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 1999. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
27 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Family history tools for primary care: A systematic review.The European journal of general practice · 2022Pooled it
- Genetic cancer risk assessment in general practice: systematic review of tools available, clinician attitudes, and patient outcomes.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2019Pooled it
- Clinical decision support for genetically guided personalized medicine: a systematic review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIAPooled it
- Lay understanding of familial risk of common chronic diseases: a systematic review and synthesis of qualitative research.Annals of family medicinePooled it
- The GRAIDS Trial: a cluster randomised controlled trial of computer decision support for the management of familial cancer risk in primary care.British journal of cancer · 2007Trial
- A randomised comparison of UK genetic risk counselling services for familial cancer: psychosocial outcomes.British journal of cancer · 2004Trial
- Article
- [Promoting directives of the Quality Law of the Spanish National Health System: Computer-interpretable clinical practice guidelines].Atencion primaria · 2018Article
- Development of a complex intervention for people with chronic pain after knee replacement: the STAR care pathway.Trials · 2018Article
- Time to rethink the capture and use of family history in primary care.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2016Article
- An Assessment of Family History Information Captured in an Electronic Health Record.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2015Article
- A family genetic risk communication framework: guiding tool development in genetics health services.Journal of community genetics · 2013Article
- Improving learning about familial risks using a multicomponent approach: the GRACE program.Personalized medicine · 2013Article
- Interactive decision support for risk management: a qualitative evaluation in cancer genetic counselling sessions.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2010Article
- From practice guidelines to clinical decision support: closing the loop.Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2009Article
- Designing and evaluating complex interventions to improve health care.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2007Review
- How computers can help to share understanding with patients.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2005Review
- A generic computerized method for estimate of familial risks.Proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2002Article
- A descriptive study of UK cancer genetics services: an emerging clinical response to the new genetics.British journal of cancer · 2001Article
- Online medical genetics resources: a US perspective.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2001Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo explore general practitioners' attitudes towards and use of a computer program for assessing genetic risk of cancer in primary care.
designQualitative analysis of semistructured interviews and video recordings of simulated consultations.
participantsPurposive sample of 15 general practitioners covering a range of computer literacy, interest in genetics, age, and sex.
interventionsEach doctor used the program in two consultations in which an actor played a woman concerned about her family history of cancer. Consultations were videotaped and followed by interviews with the video as a prompt to questioning. MAIN OUTCOME MESURESs: Use of computer program in the Consultation.
resultsThe program was viewed as an appropriate application of information technology because of the complexity of cancer genetics and a sense of "guideline chaos" in primary care. Doctors found the program easy to use, but it often affected their control of the consultation. They needed to balance their desire to share the computer screen with the patient, driven by their concerns about the effect of the computer on doctor-patient communication, against the risk of premature disclosure of bad news.
conclusionsThis computer program could provide the necessary support to assist assessment of genetic risk of cancer in primary care. The potential impact of computer software on the consultation should not be underestimated. This study highlights the need for careful evaluation when developing medical information systems.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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 OpenQuestion graph.