Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24648127›Full record

ArticleFamilial cancer2014

Analysis of patient reports on the referral process to two NSW cancer genetic services.

Grace I Butel-Simoes, Allan D Spigelman

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Familial cancer, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 29% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Grace I Butel-SimoesUniversity of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia, g.butel-simoes@student.unsw.edu.au.
Allan D Spigelman
St Vincent's Clinic · AUUNSW Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To evaluate trends and associations surrounding patient referral to cancer genetics services in NSW. The specific aims of the questionnaire used to collect information were to: (1) quantify the types of cancers being referred, (2) identify the source of referral for the patients, (3) categorise the referral as being either sought by the patient or suggested by the doctor, (4) quantify how often family history was asked, (5) determine who first raised the topic of family history, (6) identify any discouragement faced by patients, (7) clarify the cancer status of patients referred. A comparative patient-reported study was carried out using a questionnaire as the data collection tool in structured short interviews. The questions were aimed at eliciting the patient's understanding of why they were referred to the clinic, whether family history was discussed at the time of referral and who raised the issue via a series of YES/NO and open response questions. Data were collected from March 2012 to August 2012 from two different clinics, St Vincent's Hereditary Cancer Clinic, Sydney and the Hunter Family Cancer Service, Newcastle-both in New South Wales, Australia. Written consent was obtained. The study found that specialists were responsible for the majority of the 150 referrals and were more likely to be proactive in referring, as opposed to GPs (Phi and Cramer's V test). Patients reported that at the time of referral their family history was not asked in 13.5 % of cases, despite being significant. In the 131 cases where family history was discussed, it was the patient on approximately 2 in 5 occasions that brought up the topic. The most common types of cancer seen were breast cancer and colorectal. At both services GP referrals were more common then specialist referrals. On three occasions patients sought referral after being notified that the bloods they had collected by their GP for genetic testing were held by the laboratory due to failure to follow protocol. Six patients reported being discouraged to attend when seeking a referral. At the time of referral 58.7 % of patients were considered to be without cancer. Overall, 20 % of patients requested their referral to the cancer genetics clinics. The discussion of family history in the context of familial cancer is key to accurate risk assessment and management advice. Further education of doctors is required as evidenced by the number of patients where family history was not asked and in those patients who had bloods collected by their GP without counselling.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleGenetic Predisposition to DiseaseGenetic ServicesHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasmsNew South WalesReferral and ConsultationSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID24648127
OpenAlexW2027793624

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.