Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29804257›Full record

ArticleJournal of community genetics2019

Assessing patient readiness for personalized genomic medicine.

Caren J Frost, Irene L Andrulis, Saundra S Buys, John L Hopper, Esther M John, Mary Beth Terry, Angela Bradbury, Wendy K Chung, Katherine Colbath, Natalie Quintana and 7 more

Abstract 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 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Engagement in Cancer Epidemiology Cohorts.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2026
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Perception of genomic newborn screening among peripartum mothers.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. 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

17 authors.

Caren J FrostUniversity of Utah, Salt Lake City, USA.
Irene L AndrulisLunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, Sinai Health System, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Saundra S BuysUniversity of Utah, Salt Lake City, USA.
John L HopperUniversity of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Esther M JohnCancer Prevention Institute of California, Fremont, USA.
Mary Beth TerryColumbia University, New York, USA.
Angela BradburyUniversity of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA.
Wendy K ChungColumbia University, New York, USA.
Katherine ColbathUniversity of Utah, Salt Lake City, USA.
Natalie QuintanaUniversity of Utah, Salt Lake City, USA.
Elizabeth GamarraUniversity of Utah, Salt Lake City, USA.
Brian EglestonFox Chase Cancer Center, 333 Cottman Ave., Philadelphia, PA, 19111, USA.
Nina GalpernFox Chase Cancer Center, 333 Cottman Ave., Philadelphia, PA, 19111, USA.
Lisa BealinFox Chase Cancer Center, 333 Cottman Ave., Philadelphia, PA, 19111, USA.
Gord GlendonLunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, Sinai Health System, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Linda Patrick MillerUniversity of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.
Mary B DalyFox Chase Cancer Center, 333 Cottman Ave., Philadelphia, PA, 19111, USA. Mary.Daly@fccc.edu.

Funding

Breast Cancer Family Registry CohortUM1CA164920 · NCI · CANCER PREVENTION INSTIT OF CALIFORNIA · PI ANDRULIS, IRENE, BUYS, SAUNDRA S · 2012 to 2017
$12.7M
NCI NIH HHS UM1 CA164920
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Human Genome Project and the continuing advances in DNA sequencing technology have ushered in a new era in genomic medicine. Successful translation of genomic medicine into clinical care will require that providers of this information are aware of the level of understanding, attitudes, perceived risks, benefits, and concerns of their patients. We used a mixed methods approach to conduct in-depth interviews with participants in the NCI-funded Breast Cancer Family Registry (BCFR). Our goal was to gain a better understanding of attitudes towards different types and amounts of genomic information, current interest in pursuing genomic testing, and perceived risks and benefits. We interviewed 32 women from the six BCFR sites in the USA, Canada, and Australia. In this sample of women with a personal or family history of breast cancer, we found high acknowledgement of the potential of genetics/genomics to improve their own health and that of their family members through lifestyle changes or alterations in their medical management. Respondents were more familiar with cancer genetics than the genetics of other diseases. Concerns about the testing itself included a potential sense of loss of control over health, feelings of guilt on passing on a mutation to a child, loss of privacy and confidentiality, questions about the test accuracy, and the potential uncertainty of the significance of test results. These data provide important insights into attitudes about the introduction of increasingly complex genetic testing, to inform interventions to prepare individuals for the introduction of this new technology into their clinical care.

Indexed as

Breast Cancer Family RegistryMultigene panelsNext-generation sequencingPersonalized genomic medicine

Identifiers

PMID29804257
PMCPMC6325047

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.