Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27896289›Full record

ArticleMolecular genetics & genomic medicine2016

How, who, and when: preferences for delivery of genome sequencing results among women diagnosed with breast cancer at a young age.

Kimberly A Kaphingst, Jennifer Ivanovich, Ashley Elrick, Rebecca Dresser, Cindy Matsen, Melody S Goodman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Molecular genetics & genomic medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

6 authors.

Kimberly A KaphingstDepartment of CommunicationUniversity of UtahSalt Lake CityUtah; Huntsman Cancer InstituteUniversity of UtahSalt Lake CityUtah.
Jennifer IvanovichDivision of Public Health Sciences Washington University School of Medicine St. Louis Missouri.
Ashley ElrickDepartment of Communication University of Utah Salt Lake City Utah.
Rebecca DresserWashington University School of Law St. Louis Missouri.
Cindy MatsenHuntsman Cancer InstituteUniversity of UtahSalt Lake CityUtah; Department of SurgeryUniversity of UtahSalt Lake CityUtah.
Melody S GoodmanDivision of Public Health Sciences Washington University School of Medicine St. Louis Missouri.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe increasing use of genome sequencing with patients raises a critical communication challenge: return of secondary findings. While the issue of what sequencing results should be returned to patients has been examined, much less attention has been paid to developing strategies to return these results in ways that meet patients' needs and preferences. To address this, we investigated delivery preferences (i.e., who, how, when) for individual genome sequencing results among women diagnosed with breast cancer at age 40 or younger.

methodsWe conducted 60 semistructured, in-person individual interviews to examine preferences for the return of different types of genome sequencing results and the reasons underlying these preferences. Two coders independently coded interview transcripts; analysis was conducted using NVivo 10.

resultsThe major findings from the study were that: (1) many participants wanted sequencing results as soon as possible, even at the time of breast cancer diagnosis; (2) participants wanted an opportunity for an in-person discussion of results; and (3) they put less emphasis on the type of person delivering results than on the knowledge and communicative skills of that person. Participants also emphasized the importance of a results return process tailored to a patient's individual circumstances and one that she has a voice in determining.

conclusionsA critical goal for future transdisciplinary research including clinicians, patients, and communication researchers may be to develop decision-making processes to help patients make decisions about how they would like various sequencing results returned.

Indexed as

Breast cancergenome sequencingpatient preferencesreturn of resultssecondary findings.

Identifiers

PMID27896289
PMCPMC5118211

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.