SynthesisJournal of healthcare engineering2018
The Patient in Precision Medicine: A Systematic Review Examining Evaluations of Patient-Facing Materials.
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.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Using patients' oral photographs for oral hygiene motivation promotes periodontal health: a prospective randomized controlled trial.BMC oral health · 2024Trial
- Development and preliminary evaluation of a genetics education booklet for retinoblastoma.Journal of genetic counseling · 2025Article
- Precision medicine in Asia enhanced by next-generation sequencing: Implications for Thailand through a scoping review and interview study.Clinical and translational science · 2024Article
- 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 · 2023Article
- Central resources of variant discovery and annotation and its role in precision medicine.Asian biomedicine : research, reviews and news · 2022Review
- Investigating acceptability of a training programme in precision medicine for frontline healthcare professionals: a mixed methods study.BMC medical education · 2022Review
- Using Biological Feedback to Promote Health Behavior Change in Adults: Protocol for a Scoping Review.JMIR research protocols · 2022Article
- The Role of Computer Skills in Personal Health Record Adoption Among Patients With Heart Disease: Multidimensional Evaluation of Users Versus Nonusers.JMIR human factors · 2021Article
- Perceptions of 'Precision' and 'Personalised' Medicine in Singapore and Associated Ethical Issues.Asian bioethics review · 2021Article
- Evaluating co-created patient-facing materials to increase understanding of genetic test results.Journal of genetic counseling · 2021Article
- Deep Digital Phenotyping and Digital Twins for Precision Health: Time to Dig Deeper.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Article
- A quality improvement project to assess the use of visual aids to improve understanding and motivation in periodontal patients.BDJ open · 2020Article
- Genetic Variations and Precision Medicine.Perspectives in health information managemen · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.