Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29508367›Full record

ArticleJournal of community genetics2019

Evaluating and improving the implementation of a community-based hereditary cancer screening program.

Samantha Greenberg, Beverly M Yashar, Mark Pearlman, Deb Duquette, Kara Milliron, Monica Marvin

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of community genetics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Samantha GreenbergDepartment of Human Genetics, University of Michigan, 4909 Buhl Building, 1241 E Catherine St, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109-5618, USA. samgreen@umich.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4994-4793
Beverly M YasharDepartment of Human Genetics, University of Michigan, 4909 Buhl Building, 1241 E Catherine St, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109-5618, USA.
Mark PearlmanUniversity of Michigan Obstetrics and Gynecology, 1540 E Hospital DR SPC 4276, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109-4276, USA.
Deb DuquetteFeinberg School of Medicine, 645 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 630, Chicago, IL, 60611, USA.
Kara MillironUniversity of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center, 300 N Ingalls- 3A12, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109-5471, USA.
Monica MarvinDepartment of Human Genetics, University of Michigan, 4909 Buhl Building, 1241 E Catherine St, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109-5618, USA.
University of Michigan · USHuntsman (United States) · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Healthcare disparities exist in the provision of cancer genetic services including genetic counseling and testing related to BRCA1/2 mutations. To address this in a community health setting a screening tool was created to identify high-risk women. This study evaluates the implementation of the tool and identifies opportunities for improved cancer genetic screening, including regular clinician education. A mixed-method approach was used to evaluate clinician utilization of the screening tool at Planned Parenthood affiliates. Novel surveys that evaluated acceptance and implementation were administered to clinicians (n = 14) and semi-structured interviews (n = 6) were used to explore clinicians' perspectives and identify gaps in its utilization. Educational modules that addressed gaps were developed, implemented, and evaluated using a post-education survey (n = 8). Clinicians reported confidence in administering and interpreting the screening tool, but reported less confidence in their knowledge of cancer genetics and ability to connect clients with genetic counseling and testing (p = .003). Educational modules resulted in significant gains in clinician knowledge on genetic topics (p < .05) and increased self-reported confidence in connecting clients with genetic services. The modules reinforced the belief that genetic testing is beneficial for patients at increased risk (p = .001) and is important to inform subsequent medical management (p = .027). While building community clinicians' capacity to connect clients with genetic services is crucial, it is challenged by knowledge and confidence gaps in discussions of genetic services with clients. Consistent genetic-focused education with non-genetic clinicians can improve confidence and knowledge, enabling a more effective screening program in community health settings.

Indexed as

Access to genetic servicesBRCA1/2 mutationsCancer genetic servicesCancer risk evaluationGenetic educationMedically underserved populations

Identifiers

PMID29508367
PMCPMC6325040
OpenAlexW2792155322

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.