Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27329737›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2016

Supporting genetics in primary care: investigating how theory can inform professional education.

Brenda J Wilson, Rafat Islam, Jill J Francis, Jeremy M Grimshaw, Joanne A Permaul, Judith E Allanson, Sean Blaine, Ian D Graham, Wendy S Meschino, Craig R Ramsay and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of human genetics : EJHG, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Genetic cancer risk assessment in general practice: systematic review of tools available, clinician attitudes, and patient outcomes.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2019
    Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

11 authors.

Brenda J WilsonSchool of Epidemiology, Public Health and Preventive Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Rafat IslamCentre for Practice Changing Research, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Jill J FrancisSchool of Health Sciences, City University London, London, UK.
Jeremy M GrimshawSchool of Epidemiology, Public Health and Preventive Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Joanne A PermaulDepartment of Family Medicine, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Judith E AllansonDepartment of Paediatrics, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Sean BlaineSTAR Family Health Team, Stratford, Ontario, Canada.
Ian D GrahamSchool of Epidemiology, Public Health and Preventive Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Wendy S MeschinoDepartment of Paediatrics, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Craig R RamsayHealth Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
June C CarrollDepartment of Family Medicine, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Funding

Chief Scientist Office HSRU2CIHR KTS-62357
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Evidence indicates that many barriers exist to the integration of genetic case finding into primary care. We conducted an exploratory study of the determinants of three specific behaviours related to using breast cancer genetics referral guidelines effectively: 'taking a family history', 'making a risk assessment', and 'making a referral decision'. We developed vignettes of primary care consultations with hypothetical patients, representing a wide range of genetic risk for which different referral decisions would be appropriate. We used the Theory of Planned Behavior to develop a survey instrument to capture data on behavioural intention and its predictors (attitude, subjective norm, and perceived behavioural control) for each of the three behaviours and mailed it to a sample of Canadian family physicians. We used correlation and regression analyses to explore the relationships between predictor and dependent variables. The response rate was 96/125 (77%). The predictor variables explained 38-83% of the variance in intention across the three behaviours. Family physicians' intentions were lower for 'making a risk assessment' (perceived as the most difficult) than for the other two behaviours. We illustrate how understanding psychological factors salient to behaviour can be used to tailor professional educational interventions; for example, considering the approach of behavioural rehearsal to improve confidence in skills (perceived behavioural control), or vicarious reinforcement as where participants are sceptical that genetics is consistent with their role (subjective norm).

Indexed as

CanadaClinical Decision-MakingDatabases, GeneticEducation, Medical, ContinuingGenetics, MedicalGenetic TestingHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansPhysicians, Primary CarePrimary Health CareReferral and Consultation

Identifiers

PMID27329737
PMCPMC5110065

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.