ArticleBMC health services research2013
Patient and provider attitudes toward genomic testing for prostate cancer susceptibility: a mixed method study.
Article in BMC health services research, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 5 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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.
- Demographic Characteristics Associated With Perceptions of Personal Utility in Genetic and Genomic Testing: A Systematic Review.JAMA network open · 2023Pooled it
- Direct-to-consumer genetic testing: an updated systematic review of healthcare professionals' knowledge and views, and ethical and legal concerns.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2022Pooled it
- A theory-informed systematic review of clinicians' genetic testing practices.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2018Pooled it
- Personal utility in genomic testing: a systematic literature review.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2017Pooled 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
- Interest and informational preferences regarding genomic testing for modest increases in colorectal cancer risk.Public health genomics · 2014Trial
- Integrating genomic medicine into primary care -examining perceptions of community advisory board members.Journal of community genetics · 2026Article
- An exploratory mixed-methods study using the ELICIT framework to identify stakeholder-informed implementation strategies for a population health platform.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Identification of Individuals With Hereditary Cancer Risk Through Multiple Data Sources: A Population-Based Method Using the GARDE Platform and The Utah Population Database.JCO clinical cancer informatics · 2024Article
- Using the Translational Science Benefits Model to assess the impact of the Penn Implementation Science Center in Cancer Control.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2024Article
- Protocol to evaluate sequential electronic health record-based strategies to increase genetic testing for breast and ovarian cancer risk across diverse patient populations in gynecology practices.Implementation science : IS · 2023Article
- A scoping review of social and behavioral science research to translate genomic discoveries into population health impact.Translational behavioral medicine · 2021Article
- Genomic Testing for Relapsed and Refractory Lymphoid Cancers: Understanding Patient Values.The patient · 2021Article
- Physicians' strategies for using family history data: having the data is not the same as using the data.JAMIA open · 2020Article
- Health care professionals' attitudes towards population-based genetic testing and risk-stratification for ovarian cancer: a cross-sectional survey.BMC women's health · 2017Article
- Making sense of a new technology in clinical practice: a qualitative study of patient and physician perspectives.BMC health services research · 2015Article
- Understanding patient and provider perceptions and expectations of genomic medicine.Journal of surgical oncology · 2015Review
- Interest in genomic SNP testing for prostate cancer risk: a pilot survey.Hereditary cancer in clinical practice · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe strong association between family history and prostate cancer (PCa) suggests a significant genetic contribution, yet specific highly penetrant PCa susceptibility genes have not been identified. Certain single-nucleotide-polymorphisms have been found to correlate with PCa risk; however uncertainty remains regarding their clinical utility and how to best incorporate this information into clinical decision-making. Genetic testing is available directly to consumers and both patients and healthcare providers are becoming more aware of this technology. Purchasing online allows patients to bypass their healthcare provider yet patients may have difficulty interpreting test results and providers may be called upon to interpret results. Determining optimal ways to educate both patients and providers, and strategies for appropriately incorporating this information into clinical decision-making are needed.
methodsA mixed-method study was conducted in Utah between October 2011 and December 2011. Eleven focus group discussions were held and surveys were administered to 23 first-degree relatives of PCa patients living in Utah and 24 primary-care physicians and urologists practicing in Utah to present specific information about these assessments and determine knowledge and attitudes regarding health implications of using these assessments.
resultsData was independently coded by two researchers (relative Kappa = .88; provider Kappa = .77) and analyzed using a grounded theory approach. Results indicated differences in attitudes and behavioral intentions between patient and provider. Despite the test's limitations relatives indicated interest in genetic testing (52%) while most providers indicated they would not recommend the test for their patients (79%). Relatives expected providers to interpret genetic test results and use results to provide personalized healthcare recommendations while the majority of providers did not think the information would be useful in patient care (92%) and indicated low-levels of genetic self-efficacy.
conclusionsAlthough similarities exist, discordance between provider and patient attitudes may influence the effective translation of novel genomic tests into clinical practice suggesting both patient and provider perceptions and expectations be considered in development of clinical decision-support tools.
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.