ArticleBMC health services research2007
Patients' understanding of genetic susceptibility testing in mainstream medicine: qualitative study on thrombophilia.
Article in BMC health services research, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Patient values and preferences regarding VTE disease: a systematic review to inform American Society of Hematology guidelines.Blood advances · 2020Pooled it
- Impact of delivery models on understanding genomic risk for type 2 diabetes.Public health genomics · 2014Trial
- Genetic counselling in sickle cell disease: views of single young adults in Ghana.Journal of community genetics · 2020Article
- Re-Examining Genetic Screening and Oral Contraceptives: A Patient-Centered Review.Journal of personalized medicine · 2019Review
- "Am I carrier?" The patient's lived experience of thrombophilia genetic screening and its outcome.Health psychology and behavioral medicine · 2014Article
- Developing patient-friendly genetic and genomic test reports: formats to promote patient engagement and understanding.Genome medicine · 2014Article
- Genetics' influence on patient experiences with a rare chronic disorder: a photovoice study of living with alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency.The Nursing clinics of North America · 2013Article
- Genetic testing and common disorders in a public health framework: how to assess relevance and possibilities. Background Document to the ESHG recommendations on genetic testing and common disorders.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2011Review
- Attitudes of genetic counselors towards genetic susceptibility testing in children.Journal of genetic counseling · 2010Article
- The prospect of genome-guided preventive medicine: a need and opportunity for genetic counselors.Journal of genetic counseling · 2010Article
- General practitioner management of genetic aspects of a cardiac disease: a scenario-based study to anticipate providers' practices.Journal of community genetics · 2010Article
- Ethical issues of predictive genetic testing for diabetes.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2009Review
- Paving the Way to Personalized Genomic Medicine: Steps to Successful Implementation.Current pharmacogenomics and personalized medicine · 2009Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundUK and US policy initiatives have suggested that, in the future, patients and clinicians in mainstream medicine could use genetic information to prevent common illnesses. There are no studies on patients' experience and understanding of the process of testing for common genetic susceptibilities in mainstream medicine.
methodsQualitative interviews with 42 individuals who had undergone testing for a genetic susceptibility for deep vein thrombosis in primary and secondary care in the UK.
resultsSome participants, often from higher social classes, had a good understanding of the test and its implications. They had often sought additional information on thrombophilia from relatives and from the Internet. Others, often from less privileged backgrounds, had a poorer understanding of the test--seven individuals were unaware of having had the genetic test. Features of genetic information led to misunderstandings: (i) at referral, (ii) when communicating results, and (iii) when making sense of the implications of testing. Participants' accounts indicated that non-specialist doctors may feel obliged to refer a patient for a genetic test they know little about, because a patient requests it after a relative had tested positive. Sometimes a referral for a genetic test was lost under information overload when multiple tests and issues were considered. The inconsistent and informal ways of communicating test results--for example by phone--in mainstream medicine also led to confusion. Participants did not generally overestimate their risk, but some were uncertain about whether they were taking the right preventive actions and/or whether their children were at risk. Information about genetic susceptibilities was difficult to make sense of, as it related to ambiguous risks for participants and family members, complicated and unfamiliar terminology and multiple genes and preventive strategies.
conclusionPolicy visions of clinicians and patients in mainstream medicine seeking and using genetic information at their own initiative may not be realistic. Patients need more direct support in making sense of genetic information, if this information is to bring the anticipated health benefits, and not fuel health inequalities or create ethical problems. Clinicians in secondary and primary care need guidance to help them introduce genetic tests, communicate their results and explain their implications.
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.