Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30560237›Full record

ArticleMayo Clinic proceedings. Innovations, quality & outcomes2018

Acceptability of Electronic Visits for Return of Research Results in the Mayo Clinic Biobank.

Janet E Olson, Euijung Ryu, Kelly J Lyke, Suzette J Bielinski, Erin M Winkler, Matthew A Hathcock, Joshua T Bublitz, Paul Y Takahashi, James R Cerhan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
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

9 authors.

Janet E OlsonDepartment of Health Sciences Research, Division of Epidemiology, Rochester, MN.
Euijung RyuDepartment of Health Sciences Research, Division of Biomedical Statistics and Informatics, Rochester, MN.
Kelly J LykeDepartment of Health Sciences Research, Division of Epidemiology, Rochester, MN.
Suzette J BielinskiDepartment of Health Sciences Research, Division of Epidemiology, Rochester, MN.
Erin M WinklerCenter for Individualized Medicine, Rochester, MN.
Matthew A HathcockDepartment of Health Sciences Research, Division of Biomedical Statistics and Informatics, Rochester, MN.
Joshua T BublitzDepartment of Health Sciences Research, Division of Biomedical Statistics and Informatics, Rochester, MN.
Paul Y TakahashiDepartment of Medicine, Division of Primary Care Internal Medicine, Rochester, MN.
James R CerhanDepartment of Health Sciences Research, Division of Epidemiology, Rochester, MN.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

e-visits, electronic visitsOR, odds ratio

Identifiers

PMID30560237
PMCPMC6257882

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.