ArticleJournal of genetic counseling2019
Exploring genetic counselors' perceptions of usefulness and intentions to use refined risk models in clinical care based on the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM).
Article in Journal of genetic counseling, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Clinical Application of Refined Risk Estimates Study in BRCA1 and BRCA2 Pathogenic Variant Carriers: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Cancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.) · 2026Trial
- Application of P4 (Predictive, Preventive, Personalized, Participatory) Approach to Occupational Medicine.La Medicina del lavoro · 2022Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Pathogenic germline mutations in the BRCA1 or BRCA2 genes are associated with an elevated lifetime risk for breast (50%-85% risk) and ovarian cancer (20%-40% risk). Genome-wide association studies have identified over 100 genetic variants associated with modified breast and/or ovarian cancer risk in BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers. Risk models generated based on these variants have shown that these genetic modifiers strongly influence absolute risk of developing breast or ovarian cancer in BRCA mutation carriers. There is a lack of understanding, however, about the clinical applicability and utility of these risk models. To investigate this gap, we collected survey data from 274 cancer genetic counselors (GCs) through the National Society of Genetic Counselors Cancer Special Interest Group. Questions assessed perceptions of usefulness and intentions of genetic counselors to use these refined risk models in clinical care based on the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). We found that GCs' reactions to the estimates were largely positive, though they thought the possibility of changing management based on results was unlikely. Additionally, we found that more experienced GCs were more likely to consider refined risk estimates in clinic. Support also was provided for core predictions within the TAM, whereby the perceived usefulness (indirect effect est. = 0.08, 95% CI: [0.04, 0.13]) and perceived ease of use (indirect effect est. = 0.078, 95% CI: [0.04, 0.13]) of refined risk estimates were indirectly associated with intentions to use via attitudes.
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.