ArticleJournal of community genetics2011
Factors influencing consultation to discuss family history of cancer by asymptomatic patients in primary care.
Article in Journal of community genetics, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effectiveness of oncogenetics training on general practitioners' consultation skills: a randomized controlled trial.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2014Trial
- Article
- A qualitative evaluation of the psychosocial impact of family history screening in Australian primary care.Journal of genetic counseling · 2015Article
- Do people really know what makes a family history of cancer?Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Patient self-initiated consultations to discuss family history of cancer in primary care and the factors leading to these consultations have not been investigated. Seventy-one out of 150 asymptomatic patients with a family history of cancer at the Yorkshire Cancer Genetics Service participated in this study. A semi-structured questionnaire was administered. The results show that (1) family cancer events, doctors' advice and reaching the age of cancer-affected relatives were more salient in raising awareness of the added cancer risk due to family history than media and publicity, and knowledge of the genetics services; (2) knowledge of family medical history and its clinical value is not easy to ascertain; (3) the inter-relationships with other causal beliefs are of interest and could provide insights to understand the factors motivating patients to discuss family history or cancer risk; (4) the belief that 'cancer runs in the family' or is 'a family thing' may not be sufficient to heighten perceived cancer risk and motivate patients to seek medical advice; and (5) understanding of the medical concept and clinical value of family history is poor even in this group of patients who initiated the GP consultations. In conclusion, because most primary care practitioners are likely to rely on patient initiated discussion to identify individuals at an increased risk of cancer because of their family history, these findings are therefore important to help doctors and health providers understand the reasons influencing asymptomatic patients to self-refer themselves in primary care and discuss cancer risk in order to provide appropriate care.
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.