ArticleJournal of genetic counseling2018
Impact of a Patient-Facing Enhanced Genomic Results Report to Improve Understanding, Engagement, and Communication.
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 33 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
33 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Systematic Review: The Psychosocial Impacts of Autism-Related Genetic Testing.Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry · 2026Pooled it
- Parent/caregiver needs during pediatric genome-wide sequencing: A scoping literature review.Journal of genetic counseling · 2026Article
- Advancing the science of genomic learning healthcare systems.Learning health systems · 2025Article
- Putting control into parents' hands: Parent experiences with a genomic results e-booklet.Journal of genetic counseling · 2025Article
- Assessing the Impact of Simplified Language on a Patient-Facing Pharmacogenetic Report: A User Comprehension Study.Journal of personalized medicine · 2025Article
- Patient and providers' perspectives on using the GUÍA digital tool to enhance genomic results disclosure.Genetics in medicine open · 2025Article
- Article
- 'Research ethics · 2024Article
- Article
- Patient and Health Care Provider Perspectives on Patient Access to Test Results via Web Portals: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Article
- Digital interventions for genomics and genetics education, empowerment, and service engagement: A systematic review.Journal of community genetics · 2023Review
- Developing video education materials for the return of genomic test results to parents and adolescents.PEC innovation · 2022Article
- A personalized genomic results e-booklet, co-designed and pilot-tested by families.PEC innovation · 2022Article
- Co-design, implementation, and evaluation of plain language genomic test reports.NPJ genomic medicine · 2022Article
- Return of comprehensive tumour genomic profiling results to advanced cancer patients: a qualitative study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2022Article
- Co-designing models for the communication of genomic results for rare diseases: a comparative study in the Czech Republic and the United Kingdom.Journal of community genetics · 2022Article
- Article
- Preferences for and acceptability of receiving pharmacogenomic results by mail: A focus group study with a primarily African-American cohort.Journal of genetic counseling · 2021Article
- Design and user experience testing of a polygenic score report: a qualitative study of prospective users.BMC medical genomics · 2021Review
- Barriers and strategies to integrate medical genetics and primary care in underserved populations: a scoping review.Journal of community genetics · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
"The objective of this study was to" test the effectiveness of an enhanced genomic report on patient-centered outcome domains including communication, engagement and satisfaction. "Study design utilized" a prospective, randomized, mixed-methods desctiptive study of a whole genome sequencing results report, GenomeCOMPASS™, that was accessed by providers through the electronic health record and by patients through the associated patient portal. "The study was set in" an integrated healthcare delivery system in central Pennsylvania. "Eighty-four" parents of 46 children with undiagnosed Intellectual Disability, Autism Spectrum Disorder and/or multiple congenital anomalies who had participated in a previous study offering whole genome sequencing for their affected child were invited to enroll. Fifty-two parents enrolled. Following a traditional genetics results informing visit, the study coordinator stratified families by diagnostic result and uninformative result and then randomized families within each group to an intervention arm to receive the GenomeCOMPASS™ report or to the usual care arm to receive a summary letter from the medical geneticist. A letter inviting enrollment included a baseline survey, which once returned, constituted enrollment. Surveys were administered at 3 months post-genetics visit. At 6 months, the usual care arm crossed over to receive the intervention and were administered an additional survey at 3 months. Qualitative interviews were conducted following survey completion to augment the survey data regarding the patient centered outcomes of interest. Patient reported outcomes including communication, engagement, empowerment and satisfaction. In the intervention arm, GenomeCOMPASS™ reports were released to 14 families (N = 28 parents) and of those 21 (75%) returned 3 month surveys. In the usual care arm, 12 families (N = 24 parents) received usual care summary letters and of those 20 (83%) returned 3 month surveys. At crossover, GenomeCOMPASS™ reports were released to 20 individuals and 15 (75%) returned 3 month surveys. Qualitative interviews were conducted with 5 individuals. Use of the GenomeCOMPASS™ report was reported by this small group of parents to improve communication with providers and non-health professionals such as educators and therapists and led to increased engagement and high satisfaction. Providers and others involved in the children's care also endorsed the report's effectiveness. Reports that addressed negative findings, i.e. uninformative results, were not found to be useful. Although the number of users was small, this study supports that customizable template reports may provide a useful and durable source of information that can support and enhance the information provided by genetics professionals in traditional face-to-face encounters.
trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov (Record 2013-0594).
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.