Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15836545›Full record

ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2005

Barriers to translating emerging genetic research on smoking into clinical practice. Perspectives of primary care physicians.

Alexandra E Shields, David Blumenthal, Kevin B Weiss, Catherine B Comstock, Douglas Currivan, Caryn Lerman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

29 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Physicians' attitudes about multiplex tumor genomic testing.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2014
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Why is genetic screening for autosomal dominant disorders underused in families? The case of hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2011
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Alexandra E ShieldsHealth Policy Institute, Georgetown Public Policy Institute, Georgetown University, Washington, DC 20007, USA. shieldsa@georgetown.edu
David Blumenthal
Kevin B Weiss
Catherine B Comstock
Douglas Currivan
Caryn Lerman

Funding

TRANSDISCIPLINARY TOBACCO USE RESEARCH CENTERSP50CA084718 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI LERMAN, CARYN · 1999 to 2008
$17.8M
NCI NIH HHS P50 CA84718NIDA NIH HHS P50 DA84718
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveSmoking remains the leading cause of preventable death nationally. Emerging research may lead to improved smoking cessation treatment options, including tailoring treatment by genotype. Our objective was to assess primary care physicians' attitudes toward new genetic-based approaches to smoking treatment. DESIGN AND

settingA 2002 national survey of primary care physicians. Respondents were randomly assigned a survey including 1 of 2 scenarios: a scenario in which a new test to tailor smoking treatment was described as a "genetic" test or one in which the new test was described as a "serum protein" test.

participantsThe study sample was randomly drawn from all U.S. primary care physicians in the American Medical Association Masterfile (e.g., those with a primary specialty of internal medicine, family practice, or general practice). Of 2,000 sampled physicians, 1,120 responded, yielding a response rate of 62.3%. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN

resultsControlling for physician and practice characteristics, describing a new test as "genetic" resulted in a regression-adjusted mean adoption score of 73.5, compared to a score of 82.5 for a nongenetic test, reflecting an 11% reduction in physicians' likelihood of offering such a test to their patients.

conclusionsMerely describing a new test to tailor smoking treatment as "genetic" poses a significant barrier to physician adoption. Considering national estimates of those who smoke on a daily basis, this 11% reduction in adoption scores would translate into 3.9 million smokers who would not be offered a new genetic-based treatment for smoking. While emerging genetic research may lead to improved smoking treatment, the potential of novel interventions will likely go unrealized unless barriers to clinical integration are addressed.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelGenetic ResearchAdultFamily PracticeFemaleHumansInternal MedicineMalePrimary Health CareSmokingSmoking Cessation

Identifiers

PMID15836545
PMCPMC1490060

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.