ArticleGenetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics2019
Physicians' perspectives on receiving unsolicited genomic results.
Article in Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 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
30 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Return of individual research results from genomic research: A systematic review of stakeholder perspectives.PloS one · 2021Pooled it
- Review
- Nephrologists' Views on a Workflow for Returning Genetic Results to Research Participants.Kidney international reports · 2024Article
- Education and electronic medical records and genomics network, challenges, and lessons learned from a large-scale clinical trial using polygenic risk scores.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2023Review
- Studying the impact of translational genomic research: Lessons from eMERGE.American journal of human genetics · 2023Review
- Attitudes about pharmacogenomic testing vary by healthcare specialty.Pharmacogenomics · 2023Article
- A practical checklist for return of results from genomic research in the European context.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2023Article
- Electronic Health Records' Support for Primary Care Physicians' Situation Awareness: A Metanarrative Review.Human factors · 2023Review
- Attitudes among Parents towards Return of Disease-Related Polygenic Risk Scores (PRS) for Their Children.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Article
- Workforce Considerations When Building a Precision Medicine Program.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Article
- Impact of returning unsolicited genomic results to nongenetic health care providers in the eMERGE III Network.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2022Article
- Incomplete Penetrance of Population-Based Genetic Screening Results in Electronic Health Record.Frontiers in genetics · 2022Article
- Improved provider preparedness through an 8-part genetics and genomic education program.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2022Article
- Views on genomic research result delivery methods and informed consent: a review.Personalized medicine · 2021Review
- An electronic health record (EHR) log analysis shows limited clinician engagement with unsolicited genetic test results.JAMIA open · 2021Article
- The composition and capacity of the clinical genetics workforce in high-income countries: a scoping review.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2020Article
- Clinical Decision Support and Implications for the Clinician Burnout Crisis.Yearbook of medical informatics · 2020Review
- Polygenic risk scores: from research tools to clinical instruments.Genome medicine · 2020Review
- Returning Results in the Genomic Era: Initial Experiences of the eMERGE Network.Journal of personalized medicine · 2020Article
- The Implementation Chasm Hindering Genome-informed Health Care.The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposePhysicians increasingly receive genomic test results they did not order, which we term "unsolicited genomic results" (UGRs). We asked physicians how they think such results will affect them and their patients.
methodsSemistructured interviews were conducted with adult and pediatric primary care and subspecialty physicians at four sites affiliated with a large-scale return-of-results project led by the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Network. Twenty-five physicians addressed UGRs and (1) perceived need for actionability, (2) impact on patients, (3) health care workflow, (4) return of results process, and (5) responsibility for results.
resultsPhysicians prioritize actionability of UGRs and the need for clear, evidence-based "paths" for action coupled with clinical decision support (CDS). They identified potential harms to patients including anxiety, false reassurance, and clinical disutility. Clinicians worried about anticipated workflow issues including responding to UGRs and unreimbursed time. They disagreed about who was responsible for responding to UGRs.
conclusionThe prospect of receiving UGRs for otherwise healthy patients raises important concerns for physicians. Their responses informed development of an in-depth survey for physicians following return of UGRs. Strategic workflow integration of UGRs will likely be necessary to empower physicians to serve their patients effectively.
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.