ArticleCancer2018
A feasibility study of breast cancer genetic risk assessment in a federally qualified health center.
Article in Cancer, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Interventions to improve access to cancer care in underserved populations in high income countries: a systematic review.Oncology reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Uptake of Cancer Genetic Services for Chatbot vs Standard-of-Care Delivery Models: The BRIDGE Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2024Trial
- Usability Testing of an Interoperable Computerized Clinical Decision Support Tool for Fall Risk Management in Primary Care.Applied clinical informatics · 2023Trial
- Patient and Clinician Decision Support to Increase Genetic Counseling for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Syndrome in Primary Care: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2022Trial
- Pilot study of a culturally sensitive intervention to promote genetic counseling for breast cancer risk.BMC health services research · 2022Trial
- Precision Medicine in Rural Settings: Patient Perspectives on Clinician-Ordered Genetic Testing.Research square · 2026Article
- Interventions for Population Genetic Screening in Ethnic and Racial Minorities: A Scoping Review.Journal of racial and ethnic health disparities · 2025Article
- Risk-Stratified Breast Cancer Screening in Malaysia: Challenges and Opportunities.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2024Review
- Innovating for a Just and Equitable Future in Genomic and Precision Medicine Research.The American journal of bioethics : AJOB · 2023Article
- Proactive breast cancer risk assessment in primary care: a review based on the principles of screening.British journal of cancer · 2023Review
- Article
- Association of Population Screening for Breast Cancer Risk With Use of Mammography Among Women in Medically Underserved Racial and Ethnic Minority Groups.JAMA network open · 2021Article
- Increasing access to individualized medicine: a matched-cohort study examining Latino participant experiences of genomic screening.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2021Article
- Young Women's Perspectives on Being Screened for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Risk During Routine Primary Care.Women's health issues : official publication of the Jacobs Institute of Women's HealthArticle
- Healthcare Predictors of Information Dissemination About Genetic Risks.Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer CenterArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) endorses routine screening for genetic risk of breast and/or ovarian cancer as a component of primary health care. Implementation of this recommendation may prove challenging, especially in clinics serving disadvantaged communities.
methodsThe authors tested the feasibility of implementing the USPSTF mandate at a federally qualified health center (FQHC) to identify women who were eligible for genetic counseling (GC). A 12-month usual-care phase was followed by a 12-month intervention phase, during which time cancer genetic risk assessment (CGRA) was systematically performed for all women aged 25 to 69 years who presented for an annual examination. Women who were eligible for GC were recruited to participate in the study.
resultsAfter initiating CGRA, 112 women who were eligible for GC consented to study participation, and 56% of them received a referral for GC from their primary care physician. A subgroup of 50 participants were seen by the same primary care physician during both the usual-care and intervention phases. None of these patients was referred for GC during usual care, compared with 64% after the initiation of CGRA (P < .001). Only 16% of referred participants attended a GC session.
conclusionsImplementing USPSTF recommendations for CGRA as a standard component of primary health care in FQHCs is feasible and improves referral of minority women for GC, but more work is needed to understand the beliefs and barriers that prevent many underserved women from accessing cancer genetic services.
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.