ArticleGenetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics2008
Influence of genetic discrimination perceptions and knowledge on cancer genetics referral practice among clinicians.
Article in Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 30 papers, 3 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
30 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Primary care providers' cancer genetic testing-related knowledge, attitudes, and communication behaviors: A systematic review and research agenda.Journal of general internal medicine · 2017Pooled it
- A systematic review of factors that act as barriers to patient referral to genetic services.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2015Pooled it
- Primary-care providers' perceived barriers to integration of genetics services: a systematic review of the literature.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2015Pooled it
- Primary care provider practices, attitudes, and confidence with hereditary cancer risk assessment and testing: A mixed methods study.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2025Article
- Stakeholder Perception of the Implementation of Genetic Risk Testing for Twelve Multifactorial Diseases.Genes · 2023Article
- Study protocol: the Australian genetics and life insurance moratorium-monitoring the effectiveness and response (A-GLIMMER) project.BMC medical ethics · 2021Article
- Primary Care Physician Experiences with Integrated Population-Scale Genetic Testing: A Mixed-Methods Assessment.Journal of personalized medicine · 2020Article
- Evaluation of the cost and effectiveness of diverse recruitment methods for a genetic screening study.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2019Article
- Transmission of disorder and etiological information: Effects on health knowledge recollection and health-related cognition.PloS one · 2019Article
- Evolution of genetic assessment for BRCA-associated gynaecologic malignancies: a Canadian multisociety roadmap.Journal of medical genetics · 2018Review
- The Genetic Non-Discrimination Act: critical for promoting health and science in Canada.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2018Article
- Investigating Married Adults' Communal Coping with Genetic Health Risk and Perceived Discrimination.Communication monographs · 2018Article
- Personalized Medicine in the U.S. and Germany: Awareness, Acceptance, Use and Preconditions for the Wide Implementation into the Medical Standard.Journal of personalized medicine · 2016Article
- What Black Women Know and Want to Know About Counseling and Testing for BRCA1/2.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2015Article
- "Would you test your children without their consent?" and other sticky dilemmas in the field of cancer genetic testing.Familial cancer · 2014Article
- Article
- Views of Black nurses toward genetic research and testing.Journal of nursing scholarship : an official publication of Sigma Theta Tau International Honor Society of Nursing · 2013Article
- Attitudes and practices among internists concerning genetic testing.Journal of genetic counseling · 2013Article
- Views of internists towards uses of PGD.Reproductive biomedicine online · 2013Article
- Consumer awareness and attitudes about insurance discrimination post enactment of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act.Familial cancer · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo describe nongenetics clinicians' perceptions and knowledge of cancer genetics and laws prohibiting genetic discrimination, attitudes toward the use of cancer genetic testing, and referral practices.
methodsInvitations to participate were sent to a random stratified sample of California Medical Association members and to all members of California Association of Nurse Practitioners and California Latino Medical Association. Responders in active practice were eligible and completed a 47-item survey.
resultsThere were 1181 qualified participants (62% physicians). Although 96% viewed genetic testing as beneficial for their patients, 75% believed fear of genetic discrimination would cause patients to decline testing. More than 60% were not aware of federal or California laws prohibiting health insurance discrimination--concern about genetic discrimination was selected as a reason for nonreferral by 11%. A positive attitude toward genetic testing was the strongest predictor of referral (odds ratio: 3.55 [95% confidence interval: 2.24-5.63], P < 0.001) in stepwise logistic regression analyses. The higher the belief in genetic discrimination, the less likely a participant was to refer (odds ratio: 0.72 [95% confidence interval: 0.518-0.991], P < 0.05), whereas more knowledge of genetic discrimination law was associated with comfort recommending (odds ratio: 1.18 [95% confidence interval: 1.11-1.25], P < 0.001) and actual referral (odds ratio: 3.55 [95% confidence interval: 2.24-5.63], P < 0.001).
conclusionConcerns about genetic discrimination and knowledge deficits may be barriers to cancer genetics referrals. Clinician education may help promote access to cancer screening and prevention.
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.