Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29199389›Full record

ArticleJournal of genetic counseling2018

Development and Evaluation of a Telephone Communication Protocol for the Delivery of Personalized Melanoma Genomic Risk to the General Population.

Georgina L Fenton, Amelia K Smit, Lucinda Freeman, Caro Badcock, Kate Dunlop, Phyllis N Butow, Judy Kirk, Anne E Cust

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of genetic counseling, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. 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

8 authors.

Georgina L FentonCancer Epidemiology and Prevention Research, Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Level 6 - North, The Lifehouse, 119-143 Missenden Rd, Camperdown, NSW, 2050, Australia.
Amelia K SmitCancer Epidemiology and Prevention Research, Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Level 6 - North, The Lifehouse, 119-143 Missenden Rd, Camperdown, NSW, 2050, Australia.
Lucinda FreemanCancer Epidemiology and Prevention Research, Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Level 6 - North, The Lifehouse, 119-143 Missenden Rd, Camperdown, NSW, 2050, Australia.
Caro BadcockCancer Epidemiology and Prevention Research, Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Level 6 - North, The Lifehouse, 119-143 Missenden Rd, Camperdown, NSW, 2050, Australia.
Kate DunlopThe Centre for Genetics Education, NSW Health, Sydney, Australia.
Phyllis N ButowCentre for Medical Psychology and Evidence-based Decision-making, School of Psychology, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, Australia.
Judy KirkCrown Princess Mary Cancer Centre, Westmead Hospital, Sydney, Australia.
Anne E CustCancer Epidemiology and Prevention Research, Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Level 6 - North, The Lifehouse, 119-143 Missenden Rd, Camperdown, NSW, 2050, Australia. anne.cust@sydney.edu.au.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Communicating personalized genomic risk results for common diseases to the general population as a form of tailored prevention is novel and may require alternative genetic counseling service delivery models. We describe the development and evaluation of a communication protocol for disclosing melanoma genomic risk information to the asymptomatic general population and assess participants' satisfaction and acceptability. Participants (n = 117) were aged 22-69 years, living in New South Wales, Australia and unselected for family history. They provided a saliva sample and had genomic testing for melanoma for low to moderate penetrant melanoma susceptibility variants in 21 genes. Participants could choose to receive their results from a genetic counselor via telephone, followed by a mailed booklet or to receive their risk result via mailed booklet only with a follow-up call for those at high risk. A follow-up questionnaire was completed by 85% of participants 3-months later. Most participants (80%) elected to receive their result via telephone. Participants were highly satisfied with the delivery of results (mean 3.4 out of 4, standard deviation 0.5), and this did not differ by delivery mode, risk category, age or sex. On follow-up, 75% accurately recalled their risk category, 6% indicated a preference for a different delivery mode, either electronic or face-to-face. The process of disclosing genomic risk results to the general population over the telephone with accompanying written material was feasible and acceptable, and may be useful for communicating polygenic risk for common diseases in the context of increasing demands for genomic testing.

Indexed as

CommunicationGenome, HumanPrecision MedicineTelephoneAdultAgedFemaleHumansMaleMelanomaMiddle AgedNew South WalesProgram EvaluationRisk FactorsSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung AdultCommunication protocolGenetic counselingGenomic testingMelanomaPatient satisfactionService delivery modelTelephone

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.