Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30250657›Full record

SynthesisJournal of healthcare engineering2018

The Patient in Precision Medicine: A Systematic Review Examining Evaluations of Patient-Facing Materials.

Rachel M Wynn, Katharine T Adams, Rebecca L Kowalski, Winnie G Shivega, Raj M Ratwani, Kristen E Miller

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of healthcare engineering, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing 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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. The Impact of an Educational Video in Arabic Language on Patients' Knowledge and Attitudes Towards Genetic Testing for Cancer Therapy.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2023
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Genetic Variations and Precision Medicine.Perspectives in health information managemen · 2019
    Review
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.

Rachel M WynnNational Center for Human Factors in Healthcare, MedStar Health, Washington, DC 20008, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0345-5313
Katharine T AdamsNational Center for Human Factors in Healthcare, MedStar Health, Washington, DC 20008, USA.
Rebecca L KowalskiNational Center for Human Factors in Healthcare, MedStar Health, Washington, DC 20008, USA.
Winnie G ShivegaGeorgetown University School of Medicine, Washington, DC 20057, USA.
Raj M RatwaniNational Center for Human Factors in Healthcare, MedStar Health, Washington, DC 20008, USA.
Kristen E MillerNational Center for Human Factors in Healthcare, MedStar Health, Washington, DC 20008, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Precision medicine (PM) has the potential to tailor healthcare to the individual patient by using their genetic information to guide treatment choices. However, this process is complex and difficult to understand for patients and providers alike. With a recent push in the healthcare community to understand the patient experience and engage patients in their care, it is important to give patients the opportunity to learn about PM. We performed a systematic review to identify previous work assessing the quality of patient-facing PM materials from 2008 to July 2018. Ten studies were identified, which used varying methods and measures. A qualitative assessment was conducted to compare key elements of the studies, including study design, characteristics of the participant population, what measurements were used to assess the PM materials, understandability, preference, psychological reactions, and the type of PM materials being assessed. The studies identified provide important groundwork by highlighting consistent aspects of design that aid in comprehension. Eight of the ten studies focused on the content and organization of genomic test results, while the remaining two assessed educational tools. Two main design elements that appeared across the studies were appropriately designed visual aids and simplified language. The studies identified were limited by the participant populations that were used, which were primarily white and well educated. Only one study attempted to oversample patient populations typically underrepresented in this type of research. Through our systematic review, it is evident that the breadth of knowledge in this field is limited in scope and that more work must be done to ensure that patients can engage in their care when faced with PM.

Indexed as

Patient Education as TopicProfessional-Patient RelationsCommunicationFocus GroupsGenetic TestingGenomicsHealth LiteracyHumansNeoplasmsPrecision MedicineQualitative ResearchRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicResearch DesignSample Size

Identifiers

PMID30250657
PMCPMC6140003

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.