ArticleMayo Clinic proceedings. Innovations, quality & outcomes2018
Acceptability of Electronic Visits for Return of Research Results in the Mayo Clinic Biobank.
Article in Mayo Clinic proceedings. Innovations, quality & outcomes, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo understand patient characteristics related to acceptability of returning individual research results via various modalities, focusing on electronic visits (e-visits). PATIENTS AND
methodsTwelve hundred participants from the Mayo Clinic Biobank were selected using a stratified random sampling approach based on sex, age, and education level. Mailed surveys ascertained return of results preferences for 2 disease vignettes (cystic fibrosis and hereditary breast cancer) and a pharmacogenomics vignette. The study was conducted from October 1, 2013, through March 31, 2014.
resultsIn all, 685 patients (57%) responded, and 60% reported liking e-visits, although the option of receiving results in an office visit was liked most frequently. Multivariable logistic models showed that the odds of liking the use of e-visits for returning results for cystic fibrosis and hereditary breast cancer were higher among those with higher education and better genetic knowledge and among those not living in proximity to the Mayo Clinic (Rochester, Minnesota). Level of genetic knowledge was not considerably associated with accepting e-visits, whereas education level remained important. For all vignettes, those who are divorced were less likely to accept e-visits.
conclusionResearchers are faced with a difficult challenge of returning results with a method that is both acceptable to recipients and logistically feasible. This study implies that the use of e-visits may be a viable option for return of results to stratify the chasm between in-person genetic counseling and online portal receipt of results.
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.