Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30573799›Full record

ArticleGenetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics2019

Cancer communication research in the era of genomics and precision medicine: a scoping review.

Kimberly A Kaphingst, Emily Peterson, Jingsong Zhao, Anna Gaysynsky, Ashley Elrick, Soo Jung Hong, Melinda Krakow, Manusheela Pokharel, Chelsea L Ratcliff, William M P Klein and 2 more

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing 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

33 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Integrating evidence-based communication principles into routine cancer care.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2023
    Article
  20. 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

12 authors.

Kimberly A KaphingstHuntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, UT, USA. kim.kaphingst@hci.utah.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2668-9080
Emily PetersonNational Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Jingsong ZhaoHuntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
Anna GaysynskyICF, Rockville, MD, USA.
Ashley ElrickDepartment of Communication, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
Soo Jung HongNational University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Melinda KrakowNational Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Manusheela PokharelDepartment of Communication, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
Chelsea L RatcliffDepartment of Communication, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
William M P KleinNational Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Muin J KhouryOffice of Public Health Genomics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Wen-Ying Sylvia ChouNational Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA.

Funding

NCI NIH HHS HHSN261201700078P
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Effective use of genetic and genomic data in cancer prevention and treatment depends on adequate communication with patients and the public. Although relevant empirical work has emerged, the scope and outcomes of this communication research have not been characterized. We conducted a comprehensive scoping review of recent published research (2010-2017) on communication of cancer-related genetic and genomic testing (CGT) information. Searches in six databases revealed 9243 unique records; 513 papers were included. Most papers utilized an observational quantitative design; fewer utilized an experimental design. More attention has been paid to outcomes of CGT results disclosure than to decision making regarding CGT uptake or the process of results disclosure. Psychosocial outcomes were most common across studies. This literature has a strong focus on BRCA1/2, with few papers focused on Lynch syndrome or next-generation technologies. Women, Caucasians, older adults, and those of higher socioeconomic status were overrepresented. Research gaps identified include the need for studies on the process of CGT communication; examining behavioral, decision making, and communication outcomes; and inclusion of diverse populations. Addressing these gaps can help improve the use of genomics in cancer control and reduce disparities in access to and use of CGT.

Indexed as

GenomicsInterdisciplinary CommunicationDecision MakingNeoplasmsPrecision Medicinecancercommunicationdecision makinggenetic testingreturn of results

Identifiers

PMID30573799
PMCPMC7725534

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.