ArticleBMC women's health2016
Genetic testing and personalized ovarian cancer screening: a survey of public attitudes.
Article in BMC women's health, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 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
23 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 34 citations in OpenAlex.
- Acceptability of risk stratification within population-based cancer screening from the perspective of the general public: A mixed-methods systematic review.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2023Pooled it
- Pooled it
- International survey of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention and their attitudes toward pharmacogenetic testing.Pharmacogenetics and genomics · 2019Trial
- Public and Healthcare Professional Attitudes Towards Risk-Stratified Bowel Screening: A Qualitative Study Using an Info-Comic Book.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025Article
- Implementation considerations for risk-tailored cancer screening in the population: A scoping review.Preventive medicine · 2024Article
- Assessing the rates of false-positive ovarian cancer screenings and surgical interventions associated with screening tools: a systematic review.BMJ oncology · 2024Article
- Public Preferences for Determining Eligibility for Screening in Risk-Stratified Cancer Screening Programs: A Discrete Choice Experiment.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2023Article
- A mainstreaming oncogenomics model: improving the identification of Lynch syndrome.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
- A community jury study exploring the public acceptability of using risk stratification to determine eligibility for cancer screening.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022Article
- Perspectives on Consumer and Clinical Genetic Testing Education among Medical Students in West Texas.Journal of community hospital internal medicine perspectives · 2022Article
- From the patient to the population: Use of genomics for population screening.Frontiers in genetics · 2022Article
- Acceptability of risk-stratified population screening across cancer types: Qualitative interviews with the Australian public.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2021Article
- Acceptability and potential impact on uptake of using different risk stratification approaches to determine eligibility for screening: A population-based survey.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2021Article
- Systemic Barriers to Risk-Reducing Interventions for Hereditary Cancer Syndromes: Implications for Health Care Inequities.JCO precision oncology · 2021Review
- Should All Individuals Be Screened for Genetic Predisposition to Cancer?Genetics research · 2021Review
- Genetic testing preferences and intentions in patients with clinically diagnosed familial hypercholesterolemia.Journal of genetic counseling · 2020Article
- Article
- Implementation considerations for offering personal genomic risk information to the public: a qualitative study.BMC public health · 2020Article
- Queensland Consumers' Awareness and Understanding of Clinical Genetics Services.Frontiers in genetics · 2020Article
- Evaluating the Integration of Genomics into Cancer Screening Programmes: Challenges and Opportunities.Current genetic medicine reports · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAdvances in genetic technologies are expected to make population-wide genetic testing feasible. This could provide a basis for risk stratified cancer screening; but acceptability in the target populations has not been explored.
methodsWe assessed attitudes to risk-stratified ovarian cancer (OC) screening based on prior genetic risk assessment using a survey design. Home-based interviews were carried out by the UK Office of National Statistics in a population-based sample of 1095 women aged 18-74. Demographic and personal correlates of attitudes to risk-stratified OC screening based on prior genetic risk assessment were determined using univariate analyses and adjusted logistic regression models.
resultsFull data on the key analytic questions were available for 829 respondents (mean age 46 years; 27 % 'university educated'; 93 % 'White'). Relatively few respondents felt they were at 'higher' or 'much higher' risk of OC than other women of their age group (7.4 %, n = 61). Most women (85 %) said they would 'probably' or 'definitely' take up OC genetic testing; which increased to 88 % if the test also informed about breast cancer risk. Almost all women (92 %) thought they would 'probably' or 'definitely' participate in risk-stratified OC screening. In multivariate logistic regression models, university level education was associated with lower anticipated uptake of genetic testing (p = 0.009), but with more positive attitudes toward risk-stratified screening (p <0.001). Perceived risk was not significantly associated with any of the outcome variables.
conclusionsThese findings give confidence in taking forward research on integration of novel genomic technologies into mainstream healthcare.
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.