ReviewPloS one2016
Improving Decision Making about Genetic Testing in the Clinic: An Overview of Effective Knowledge Translation Interventions.
Review in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 2 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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 24 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
- A theory-informed systematic review of clinicians' genetic testing practices.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2018Pooled it
- Framing Effects on Decision-Making for Diagnostic Genetic Testing: Results from a Randomized Trial.Genes · 2021Trial
- 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
- Attitudes towards genetic testing: The role of genetic literacy, motivated cognition, and socio-demographic characteristics.PloS one · 2023Article
- Perspectives on Consumer and Clinical Genetic Testing Education among Medical Students in West Texas.Journal of community hospital internal medicine perspectives · 2022Article
- ShareDNA: a smartphone app to facilitate family communication of genetic results.BMC medical genomics · 2021Article
- Article
- Article
- Review
- Four Actionable Bottlenecks and Potential Solutions to Translating Psychiatric Genetics Research: An Expert Review.Public health genomics · 2020Review
- Clinical genetic testing in medical education.Proceedings (Baylor University. Medical Center) · 2019Article
- Pilot study of decision support tools on breast cancer chemoprevention for high-risk women and healthcare providers in the primary care setting.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2018Article
- The Genomics ADvISER: development and usability testing of a decision aid for the selection of incidental sequencing results.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2018Article
- A New Era, New Strategies: Education and Communication Strategies to Manage Greater Access to Genomic Information.The Hastings Center report · 2018Article
- An Applied Framework in Support of Shared Decision Making aboutAMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundKnowledge translation (KT) interventions are attempts to change behavior in keeping with scientific evidence. While genetic tests are increasingly available to healthcare consumers in the clinic, evidence about their benefits is unclear and decisions about genetic testing are thus difficult for all parties.
objectiveWe sought to identify KT interventions that involved decisions about genetic testing in the clinical context and to assess their effectiveness for improving decision making in terms of behavior change, increased knowledge and wellbeing.
methodsWe searched for trials assessing KT interventions in the context of genetic testing up to March 2014 in all systematic reviews (n = 153) published by two Cochrane review groups: Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) and Consumers and Communication.
resultsWe retrieved 2473 unique trials of which we retained only 28 (1%). Two EPOC reviews yielded two trials of KT interventions: audit and feedback (n = 1) and educational outreach (n = 1). Both targeted health professionals and the KT intervention they assessed was found to be effective. Four Consumers and Communication reviews yielded 26 trials: decision aids (n = 15), communication of DNA-based disease risk estimates (n = 7), personalized risk communication (n = 3) and mobile phone messaging (n = 1). Among these, 25 trials targeted only health consumers or patients and the KT interventions were found to be effective in four trials, partly effective in seven, and ineffective in four. Lastly, only one trial targeted both physicians and patients and was found to be effective.
conclusionsMore research on the effectiveness of KT interventions regarding genetic testing in the clinical context may contribute to patients making informed value-based decisions and drawing the maximum benefit from clinical applications of genetic and genomic innovations.
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.