ArticleGenetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics2017
Engagement and communication among participants in the ClinSeq Genomic Sequencing Study.
Article in Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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.
Funding
Abstract
purposeAs clinical genome sequencing expand its reach, understanding how individuals engage with this process are of critical importance. In this study, we aimed to describe internal engagement and its correlates among a ClinSeq cohort of adults consented to genome sequencing and receipt of results.
methodsThis study was framed using the precaution adoption process model (PAPM), in which knowledge predicts engagement and engagement predicts subsequent behaviors. Prior to receipt of sequencing results, 630 participants in the study completed a baseline survey. Engagement was assessed as the frequency with which participants thought about their participation in ClinSeq since enrollment.
resultsResults were consistent with the PAPM: those with higher genomics knowledge reported higher engagement (r = 0.13, P = 0.001) and those who were more engaged reported more frequent communication with their physicians (r = 0.28, P < 0.001) and family members (r = 0.35, P < 0.001) about ClinSeq. Characteristics of those with higher engagement included poorer overall health (r = -0.13, P = 0.002), greater seeking of health information (r = 0.16, P < 0.001), and more recent study enrollment (r = -0.21, P < 0.001).
conclusionThese data support the importance of internal engagement in communication related to genomic sequencing.Genet Med 19 1, 98-103.
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.