Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30689103›Full record

ArticleFamilial cancer2019

Moving into the mainstream: healthcare professionals' views of implementing treatment focussed genetic testing in breast cancer care.

Nina Hallowell, S Wright, D Stirling, C Gourley, O Young, M Porteous

Open access · hybridAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Familial cancer, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.4field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

47 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 74 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Hereditary genetic testing and mainstreaming: a guide for surgeons.Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England · 2024
    Article
  18. Review
  19. 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

6 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Nina HallowellWellcome Centre for Ethics and Humanities and the Ethox Centre, Nuffield Department of Population Health, Big Data Institute Li Ka Shing Centre for Health Information and Discovery, University of Oxford, Old Road Campus, Oxford, OX3 7LF, UK. nina.hallowell@ethox.ox.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-7647-8524
S WrightUsher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
D StirlingMRC Institute of Genetics and Molecular Medicine, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
C GourleyMRC Institute of Genetics and Molecular Medicine, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
O YoungEdinburgh Breast Unit, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh, UK.
M PorteousMRC Institute of Genetics and Molecular Medicine, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Institute of Genetics and Cancer · GBEdinburgh Cancer Research · GBUniversity of Edinburgh · GBUniversity of Oxford · GBWestern General Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A proportion of breast cancers are attributable to BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. Technological advances has meant that mutation testing in newly diagnosed cancer patients can be used to inform treatment plans. Although oncologists increasingly deliver treatment-focused genetic testing (TFGT) as part of mainstream ovarian cancer care, we know little about non-genetics specialists' views about offering genetic testing to newly diagnosed breast cancer patients. This study sought to determine genetics and non-genetics specialists' views of a proposal to mainstream BRCA1 and 2 testing in newly diagnosed breast cancer patients. Qualitative interview study. Nineteen healthcare professionals currently responsible for offering TFGT in a standard (triage + referral) pathway (breast surgeons + clinical genetics team) and oncologists preparing to offer TFGT to breast cancer patients in a mainstreamed pathway participated in in-depth interviews. Genetics and non-genetics professionals' perceptions of mainstreaming are influenced by their views of: their clinical roles and responsibilities, the impact of TFGT on their workload and the patient pathway and the perceived relevance of genetic testing for patient care in the short-term. Perceived barriers to mainstreaming may be overcome by: more effective communication between specialities, clearer guidelines/patient pathways and the recruitment of mainstreaming champions.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelGenes, BRCA1Genes, BRCA2Genetic TestingBreast NeoplasmsClinical Decision-MakingFemaleGenetics, MedicalHumansMutationOncologistsPhysician's RoleQualitative ResearchReferral and ConsultationSurgeonsTriageBRCA1 and BRCA2 treatment focussed testingClinician perspectivesMainstreamingQualitative analysis

Identifiers

PMID30689103
PMCPMC6560008
OpenAlexW2911982720

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.