ArticleHuman resources for health2017
Knowledge, attitudes, and values among physicians working with clinical genomics: a survey of medical oncologists.
Article in Human resources for health, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
44 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Adopting clinical genomics: a systematic review of genomic literacy among physicians in cancer care.BMC medical genomics · 2018Pooled it
- Use, understanding, and perceptions of gut microbiome research and practices in oncology.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026Article
- Genomic Medicine Among Ophthalmologists: Knowledge, Current Practice, and Barriers.Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Article
- A context-augmented large language model for accurate precision oncology medicine recommendations.Cancer cell · 2026Article
- Case-based genomics education and training of neurologists: an Egyptian initiative.Journal of community genetics · 2025Article
- Awareness, knowledge, and attitudes toward polygenic risk scores for breast cancer in multiethnic high-risk cohorts of women.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2025Article
- Patient and physician preferences for cancer panel testing in Japan: a best-worst scaling study.BMJ open · 2025Observational
- A qualitative study to evaluate the preparedness of community paediatricians for genomic medicine in England - ready for take-off?Journal of community genetics · 2025Article
- How is Value Defined in Molecular Testing in Cancer? A Scoping Review.Applied health economics and health policy · 2025Article
- Genetic and Genomic Literacy of Healthcare Providers Treating Anorexia Nervosa in the United States: A Mixed Methods, Cross-Sectional Study.Brain and behavior · 2025Article
- A video intervention to improve patient understanding of tumor genomic testing in patients with cancer.Cancer medicine · 2024Article
- Bridging the Gap in Genomic Implementation: Identifying User Needs for Precision Nephrology.Kidney international reports · 2024Article
- Bridging the educational gaps of health professionals in oncogenomics: results from a pilot e-learning course.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Article
- Article
- Physician Perception of the Importance of Medical Genetics and Genomics in Medical Education and Clinical Practice.Medical education online · 2023Article
- Variability in conceptualizations and measurement of genetic literacy.PEC innovation · 2023Article
- Canadian Healthcare Professionals' Views and Attitudes toward Risk-Stratified Breast Cancer Screening.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Article
- Clinicians' Perceptions towards Precision Medicine Tools for Cardiovascular Disease Risk Stratification in South Africa.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Article
- Preferences for return of germline genome sequencing results for cancer patients and their genetic relatives in a research setting.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2022Article
- Patient and Provider Perspectives on Enrollment in Precision Oncology Research: Qualitative Ethical Analysis.JMIR cancer · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIt has been over a decade since the completion of the Human Genome Project (HGP), genomic sequencing technologies have yet to become parts of standard of care in Canada. This study investigates medical oncologists' (MOs) genomic literacy and their experiences based on their participation in a cancer genomics trial in British Columbia, Canada.
methodsThe authors conducted a survey of MOs from British Columbia, Canada (n = 31, 52.5% response rate), who are actively involved in a clinical genomics trial called Personalized Onco-Genomics (POG). The authors also measured MOs' level of genomic knowledge and attitudes about clinical genomics in cancer medicine.
resultsThe findings show a low to moderate level of genomic literacy among MOs. MOs located outside the Vancouver area (the major urban center) reported less knowledge about new genetics technologies compared to those located in the major metropolitan area (26.7 vs 73.3%, P < 0.07, Fisher exact test). Forty-two percent of all MOs thought medical training programs do not offer enough genomic training. The majority of the respondents thought genomics will have major impact on drug discovery (67.7%), and treatment selection (58%) in the next 5 years. They also thought the major challenges are cost (61.3%), patient genomic literacy (48.3%), and clinical utility of genomics (42%).
conclusionsThe data suggest a high need to increase genomic literacy among MOs and other doctors in medical school training programs and beyond, especially to physicians in regional areas who may need more educational interventions. Initiatives like POG play a critical role in the education of MOs and the integration of big data clinical genomics into cancer care.
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.