Trial reportThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2012
A primary care specialist genetics service: a cluster-randomised factorial trial.
Trial report in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Building capacity for genomics in primary care: a scoping review of practitioner attitudes, education needs, and enablers.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Pooled it
- The design, implementation, and effectiveness of intervention strategies aimed at improving genetic referral practices: a systematic review of the literature.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2021Pooled it
- Delivering genomic medicine in the United Kingdom National Health Service: a systematic review and narrative synthesis.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2019Pooled it
- Adopting clinical genomics: a systematic review of genomic literacy among physicians in cancer care.BMC medical genomics · 2018Pooled it
- Decision makers' perceptions of integrating genetic counselors into primary care.Family practice · 2025Article
- Process for mainstreaming genetic cascade testing into primary and tertiary health systems in familial hypercholesterolaemia (FH), an autosomal dominant, fully penetrant disorder.Family medicine and community health · 2025Article
- Expanding the primary care workforce by integrating genetic counselors in multidisciplinary care teams.Family practice · 2025Article
- Ensuring best practice in genomics education: A scoping review of genomics education needs assessments and evaluations.American journal of human genetics · 2024Article
- Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice About the Process of Genetic Counselling Among Clinicians.Cureus · 2023Article
- The stepwise process of integrating a genetic counsellor into primary care.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2022Article
- 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 · 2019Article
- Genomics in general practice: Generation Genome.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2017Article
- Interventions to improve patient access to and utilisation of genetic and genomic counselling services.The Cochrane database of systematic reviewsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundGPs do not have the confidence to identify patients at increased genetic risk. A specialist primary care clinical genetics service could support GPs with referral and provide local clinics for their patients.
aimTo test whether primary care genetic-led genetics education improves both non-cancer and cancer referral rates, and primary care-led genetics clinics improve the patient pathway. DESIGN AND
settingCluster-randomised factorial trial in 73 general practices in the south of England.
methodPractices randomised to receive case scenario based seminar (intervention) or not (control), and referred patients a primary (intervention) or secondary (control) care genetic counsellor (GC)-led appointment. OUTCOME MEASURES: GP referral and clinic attendance rates (primary), appropriate cancer and case scenario referral rates, patient satisfaction, clinic costs, and case management (secondary).
resultsEighty-nine and 68 referrals made by 36 intervention and 37 control practices respectively. There was a trend towards an overall higher referral rate among educated GPs (referral rate ratio [RRR] 1.34, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.89 to 2.02; P = 0.161), and they made more appropriate cancer referrals (RRR 2.36, 95% CI = 1.07 to 5.24; P = 0.035). No indication of difference in clinic attendance rates (odds ratio 0.91, 95% CI = 0.43 to 1.95; P = 0.802) or patient satisfaction (P = 0.189). Patients spent 49% less travelling (£3.60 versus £6.62; P<0.001) and took 33% less time (39.7 versus 57.7 minutes; P<0.001) to attend a primary than secondary care appointment; 83% of GC-managed appointments met the 18-week referral to treatment, NHS target.
conclusionAn integrated primary care genetics service both supports GPs in appropriate cancer referral and provides care in the right place by the right person.
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.