ArticlePersonalized medicine2016
Communication challenges for nongeneticist physicians relaying clinical genomic results.
Article in Personalized medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.
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
24 citing papers in PubMed.
- The NYCKidSeq randomized controlled trial: Impact of GUÍA digitally enhanced genetic results disclosure in diverse families.American journal of human genetics · 2023Trial
- How Primary Care Providers Talk to Patients about Genome Sequencing Results: Risk, Rationale, and Recommendation.Journal of general internal medicine · 2018Trial
- Preparedness for working with genomic medicine among Swedish non-genetics physicians - a nation-wide survey study.Journal of community genetics · 2026Article
- ChatGPT's role in the rapidly evolving hematologic cancer landscape.Future science OA · 2025Article
- Self-assessed knowledge of genomic medicine among non-genetics physicians - results from a nationwide Swedish survey.Journal of community genetics · 2025Article
- Development of Competency-based Online Genomic Medicine Training (COGENT).Personalized medicine · 2023Review
- A personalized genomic results e-booklet, co-designed and pilot-tested by families.PEC innovation · 2022Article
- Workforce Considerations When Building a Precision Medicine Program.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Article
- Patient and Provider Perspectives on Enrollment in Precision Oncology Research: Qualitative Ethical Analysis.JMIR cancer · 2022Article
- Current Issues, Challenges, and Future Perspectives of Genetic Counseling in Korea.Annals of laboratory medicine · 2022Review
- Behavioral and psychological impact of genome sequencing: a pilot randomized trial of primary care and cardiology patients.NPJ genomic medicine · 2021Article
- Whether, when, how, and how much? General public's and cancer patients' views about the disclosure of genomic secondary findings.BMC medical genomics · 2021Article
- Pediatric Oncologists' Experiences Returning and Incorporating Genomic Sequencing Results into Cancer Care.Journal of personalized medicine · 2021Article
- Legal Challenges in Precision Medicine: What Duties Arising From Genetic and Genomic Testing Does a Physician Owe to Patients?Frontiers in medicine · 2021Article
- Primary Care Physician Experiences with Integrated Population-Scale Genetic Testing: A Mixed-Methods Assessment.Journal of personalized medicine · 2020Article
- Bridging the Gap between Scientific Advancement and Real-World Application: Pediatric Genetic Counseling for Common Syndromes and Single-Gene Disorders.Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in medicine · 2020Review
- Re-examining the Ethics of Genetic Counselling in the Genomic Era.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2020Article
- Genetic Counseling Status and Perspectives Based on a 2018 Professional Survey in Korea.Annals of laboratory medicine · 2020Article
- How Can Law and Policy Advance Quality in Genomic Analysis and Interpretation for Clinical Care?The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics · 2020Article
- "Balancing Expectations with Actual Realities": Conversations with Clinicians and Scientists in the First Year of a High-Risk Childhood Cancer Precision Medicine Trial.Journal of personalized medicine · 2020Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
aimIdentify the behavioral challenges to the use of genome sequencing (GS) in a clinical setting. MATERIALS &
methodsWe observed how general internists and nongenetic specialists delivered GS results to patients enrolled in the MedSeq Project. Using transcripts of such disclosure interactions, we made qualitative observations of communication behaviors that could limit the usefulness of GS results until reaching the point of thematic saturation.
resultsFindings included confusion regarding genomic terminology, difficulty with the volume or complexity of information and difficulties communicating complex risk information to patients. We observed a broad dismissal of clinical value of GS by some physicians and sometimes ineffective communication regarding health behavior change.
conclusionOvercoming these behavioral challenges is necessary to make full use of clinical GS results.
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.