ArticleEGEMS (Washington, DC)2018
Generation and Implementation of a Patient-Centered and Patient-Facing Genomic Test Report in the EHR.
Article in EGEMS (Washington, DC), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Characterizing trends in clinical genetic testing: A single-center analysis of EHR data from 1.8 million patients over two decades.American journal of human genetics · 2025Article
- Written communication of whole genome sequencing results in the NHS Genomic Medicine Service: a multi-centre service evaluation.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2024Article
- Developing video education materials for the return of genomic test results to parents and adolescents.PEC innovation · 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
- Assessing Data Adequacy for High Blood Pressure Clinical Decision Support: A Quantitative Analysis.Applied clinical informatics · 2021Article
- Pitfalls and challenges in genetic test interpretation: An exploration of genetic professionals experience with interpretation of results.Clinical genetics · 2021Article
- Genetic Counseling, Personalized Medicine, and Precision Health.Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in medicine · 2020Review
- The interface of genomic information with the electronic health record: a points to consider statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG).Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2020Article
- Utilization of health information technology among cancer genetic counselors.Molecular genetics & genomic medicine · 2020Article
- Understanding the Return of Genomic Sequencing Results Process: Content Review of Participant Summary Letters in the eMERGE Research Network.Journal of personalized medicine · 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
contextCommunication of genetic laboratory results to patients and providers is impeded by the complexity of results and reports. This can lead to misinterpretation of results, causing inappropriate care. Patients often do not receive a copy of the report leading to possible miscommunication. To address these problems, we conducted patient-centered research to inform design of interpretive reports. Here we describe the development and deployment of a specific patient-centered clinical decision support (CDS) tool, a multi-use patient-centered genomic test report (PGR) that interfaces with an electronic health record (EHR). IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS: A PGR with a companion provider report was configured for implementation within the EHR using locally developed software (COMPASS™) to manage secure data exchange and access.
findingsWe conducted semi-structured interviews with patients, family members, and clinicians that showed they sought clear information addressing findings, family implications, resources, prognosis and next steps relative to the genomic result. Providers requested access to applicable, available clinical guidelines. Initial results indicated patients and providers found the PGR contained helpful, valuable information and would provide a basis for result-related conversation between patients, providers and family. MAJOR THEMES: Direct patient involvement in the design and development of a PGR identified format and presentation preferences, and delivery of relevant information to patients and providers, prompting the creation of a CDS tool.
conclusionsResearch and development of patient-centered CDS tools designed to support improved patient outcomes, are enhanced by early and substantial engagement of patients in contributing to all phases of tool design and development.
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.