Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29246147›Full record

ArticleBMC women's health2017

Health care professionals' attitudes towards population-based genetic testing and risk-stratification for ovarian cancer: a cross-sectional survey.

Katie E J Hann, Lindsay Fraser, Lucy Side, Sue Gessler, Jo Waller, Saskia C Sanderson, Madeleine Freeman, Ian Jacobs, Anne Lanceley, PROMISE study team

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC women's health, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 26% of its field
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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Primary care provider practices, attitudes, and confidence with hereditary cancer risk assessment and testing: A mixed methods study.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2025
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

10 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Katie E J HannDepartment of Women's Cancer, EGA UCL Institute for Women's Health, University College London, 74 Huntley Street, London, WC1E 6AU, UK.
Lindsay FraserDepartment of Women's Cancer, EGA UCL Institute for Women's Health, University College London, 74 Huntley Street, London, WC1E 6AU, UK.
Lucy SideDepartment of Women's Cancer, EGA UCL Institute for Women's Health, University College London, 74 Huntley Street, London, WC1E 6AU, UK.
Sue GesslerDepartment of Women's Cancer, EGA UCL Institute for Women's Health, University College London, 74 Huntley Street, London, WC1E 6AU, UK.
Jo WallerDepartment of Behavioural Science and Health, Institute of Epidemiology and Health Care, University College London, London, UK.
Saskia C SandersonDepartment of Behavioural Science and Health, Institute of Epidemiology and Health Care, University College London, London, UK.
Madeleine FreemanDepartment of Behavioural Science and Health, Institute of Epidemiology and Health Care, University College London, London, UK.
Ian JacobsDepartment of Women's Cancer, EGA UCL Institute for Women's Health, University College London, 74 Huntley Street, London, WC1E 6AU, UK.
Anne LanceleyDepartment of Women's Cancer, EGA UCL Institute for Women's Health, University College London, 74 Huntley Street, London, WC1E 6AU, UK. a.lanceley@ucl.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9143-9710
PROMISE study team
London Women's Clinic · GBGreat Ormond Street Hospital · GBUniversity Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust · GBUNSW Sydney · AUUniversity College London · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UK 12677Cancer Research UK C1005/A12677
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOvarian cancer is usually diagnosed at a late stage when outcomes are poor. Personalised ovarian cancer risk prediction, based on genetic and epidemiological information and risk stratified management in adult women could improve outcomes. Examining health care professionals' (HCP) attitudes to ovarian cancer risk stratified management, willingness to support women, self-efficacy (belief in one's own ability to successfully complete a task), and knowledge about ovarian cancer will help identify training needs in anticipation of personalised ovarian cancer risk prediction being introduced.

methodsAn anonymous survey was distributed online to HCPs via relevant professional organisations in the UK. Kruskal-Wallis tests and pairwise comparisons were used to compare knowledge and self-efficacy scores between different types of HCPs, and attitudes toward population-based genetic testing and risk stratified management were described. Content analysis was undertaken of free text responses concerning HCPs willingness to discuss risk management options with women.

resultsOne hundred forty-six eligible HCPs completed the survey: oncologists (31%); genetics clinicians (30%); general practitioners (22%); gynaecologists (10%); nurses (4%); and 'others'. Scores for knowledge of ovarian cancer and genetics, and self-efficacy in conducting a cancer risk consultation were generally high but significantly lower for general practitioners compared to genetics clinicians, oncologists, and gynaecologists. Support for population-based genetic testing was not high (<50%). Attitudes towards ovarian cancer risk stratification were mixed, although the majority of participants indicated a willingness to discuss management options with patients.

conclusionsLarger samples are required to investigate attitudes to population-based genetic testing for ovarian cancer risk and to establish why some HCPs are hesitant to offer testing to all adult female patients. If ovarian cancer risk assessment using genetic testing and non-genetic information including epidemiological information is rolled out on a population basis, training will be needed for HCPs in primary care to enable them to provide appropriate support to women at each stage of the process.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelGenetic TestingHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleGenetics, PopulationHealth PersonnelHumansMaleMiddle AgedOvarian NeoplasmsPrimary Health CareQuality of Health CareGenetic testingHealth care professionalsOvarian cancerRisk stratification

Identifiers

PMID29246147
PMCPMC5732525
OpenAlexW2771613886

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.