ArticleFamilial cancer2016
Non-genetic health professionals' attitude towards, knowledge of and skills in discussing and ordering genetic testing for hereditary cancer.
Article in Familial cancer, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
38 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 71 citations in OpenAlex.
- A systematic review of communication interventions to help healthcare professionals discuss genetic testing for breast cancer.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2020Pooled it
- Non-genetic physicians' self-assessment of knowledge and confidence toward genetic testing and counseling: a national survey in a high consanguineous population.Journal of community genetics · 2026Article
- Breast cancer specialists' experiences and attitudes towards mainstream genetic testing for patients with breast cancer.Hereditary cancer in clinical practice · 2026Article
- Review
- Primary care online training on multifactorial breast cancer risk: pre-post evaluation study.BJGP open · 2025Article
- BRCA cascade counselling and testing in Italy: current position and future directions.BMC cancer · 2025Observational
- A qualitative study to evaluate the preparedness of community paediatricians for genomic medicine in England - ready for take-off?Journal of community genetics · 2025Article
- Delivering Trio Germline Whole Genome Sequencing to Patients Newly Diagnosed With Childhood Cancer: Healthcare Professionals' Perspectives of the PREDICT Study.Cancer medicine · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
- Bridging the educational gaps of health professionals in oncogenomics: results from a pilot e-learning course.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Article
- Article
- Surgical Oncologists and Nurses in Breast Cancer Care are Ready to Provide Pre-Test Genetic Counseling.Annals of surgical oncology · 2023Article
- Attitudes towards and sociodemographic determinants of genetic test usage in the USA; data from the Health Information National Trend Survey, 2020.Journal of genetic counseling · 2023Article
- Mainstream germline genetic testing in men with metastatic prostate cancer: design and protocol for a multicenter observational study.BMC cancer · 2022Article
- Physicians' experience, practice and education, on genetic testing and genetic counseling: a nationwide survey study in Greece.Familial cancer · 2022Article
- Current Issues, Challenges, and Future Perspectives of Genetic Counseling in Korea.Annals of laboratory medicine · 2022Review
- Article
- Attitudes of Australian dermatologists on the use of genetic testing: A cross-sectional survey with a focus on melanoma.Frontiers in genetics · 2022Article
- Knowledge and psychosocial impact of genetic counseling and multigene panel testing among individuals with ovarian cancer.Familial cancer · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Non-genetic health professionals (NGHPs) have insufficient knowledge of cancer genetics, express educational needs and are unprepared to counsel their patients regarding their genetic test results. So far, it is unclear how NGHPs perceive their own communication skills. This study was undertaken to gain insight in their perceptions, attitudes and knowledge. Two publically accessible databases were used to invite NGHPs providing cancer genetic services to complete a questionnaire. The survey assessed: sociodemographic attributes, experience in ordering hereditary cancer genetic testing, attitude, knowledge, perception of communication skills (e.g. information giving, decision-making) and educational needs. Of all respondents (N = 49, response rate 11%), most have a positive view of their own information giving (mean = 53.91, range 13-65) and decision making skills (64-77% depending on topic). NGHPs feel responsible for enabling disease and treatment related behavior (89-91%). However, 20-30% reported difficulties managing patients' emotions and did not see management of long-term emotions as their responsibility. Correct answers on knowledge questions ranged between 41 and 96%. Higher knowledge was associated with more confidence in NGHPs' own communication skills (r(s) = .33, p = 0.03). Although NGHPs have a positive view of their communication skills, they perceive more difficulties managing emotions. The association between less confidence in communication skills and lower knowledge level suggests awareness of knowledge gaps affects confidence. NGHPs might benefit from education about managing client emotions. Further research using observation of actual counselling consultations is needed to investigate the skills of this specific group of providers.
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.