Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27215612›Full record

ArticleBMC medical genomics2016

Attitudes to incorporating genomic risk assessments into population screening programs: the importance of purpose, context and deliberation.

Stuart G Nicholls, Holly Etchegary, June C Carroll, David Castle, Louise Lemyre, Beth K Potter, Samantha Craigie, Brenda J Wilson, CIHR Emerging Team in Genomics and Screening

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical genomics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Cost-Effectiveness of Personalized Screening for Colorectal Cancer Based on Polygenic Risk and Family History.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2020
    Article
  12. Review
  13. 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

9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Stuart G NichollsSchool of Epidemiology, Public Health and Preventive Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, K1H 8M5, Canada.
Holly EtchegaryClinical Epidemiology, Memorial University, St John's, NL, Canada.
June C CarrollDepartment of Family and Community Medicine, Sinai Health System, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
David CastleVice-President Research, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada.
Louise LemyreSchool of Psychology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Beth K PotterSchool of Epidemiology, Public Health and Preventive Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, K1H 8M5, Canada.
Samantha CraigieMichael G DeGroote National Pain Centre, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Brenda J WilsonSchool of Epidemiology, Public Health and Preventive Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, K1H 8M5, Canada. bwilson@uottawa.ca.
CIHR Emerging Team in Genomics and Screening
University of Ottawa · CAMemorial University of Newfoundland · CAUniversity of Toronto · CA

Funding

CIHR ETG 92254
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe use of an overall risk assessment based on genomic information is consistent with precision medicine. Despite the enthusiasm, there is a need for public engagement on the appropriate use of such emerging technologies in order to frame meaningful evaluations of utility, including the practical implementation and acceptability issues that might emerge. Doing so requires the involvement of the end users of these services, including patients, and sections of the public who are the target group for population based screening. In the present study we sought to explore public attitudes to the potential integration of personal genomic profiling within existing population screening programs; and to explore the evolution of these attitudes as part of a deliberative process.

methodsWe conducted a mixed methods study presented in the format of a deliberative workshop. Participants were drawn from communities in Ottawa, Ontario (ON) and St John's, Newfoundland and Labrador (NL), Canada. Individuals were approached to take part in a workshop on the incorporation of genomic risk profiling for either colorectal cancer screening (CRC), or newborn screening for type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM).

resultsA total of N = 148 (N = 65 ON, N = 83 NL) participants provided data for analysis. Participants in both groups were supportive of public funding for genomic risk profiling, although participants in the T1DM groups expressed more guarded positive attitudes than participants in the CRC groups. These views were stable throughout the workshop (CRC, p = 0.15, T1DM, p =0.39). Participants were less positive about individual testing, with a significant decrease in support over the course of the workshop (CRC p = 0.02, T1DM, p = 0.003). Common concerns related to access to test results by third parties.

conclusionsThe findings of this study suggest that members of the target populations for potential genomic profiling tests (designed for screening or risk prediction purposes) can engage in meaningful deliberation about their general acceptability and personal utility. Evaluations of whether a test would be personally useful may depend on the experience of the participants in personal health decision making, the purpose of the test, and the availability of interventions to reduce disease risk.

Indexed as

Genetic TestingGenomicsHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeAdultAgedAged, 80 and overColorectal NeoplasmsDiabetes Mellitus, Type 1FemaleHumansInfantMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedPrecision MedicineRisk Assessment

Identifiers

PMID27215612
PMCPMC4878078
OpenAlexW2407773576

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.