ArticleMolecular genetics & genomic medicine2019
IGNITE network: Response of patients to genomic medicine interventions.
Article in Molecular genetics & genomic medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Clinical implementation of drug metabolizing gene-based therapeutic interventions worldwide.Human genetics · 2022Review
- Real-World Impact of a Pharmacogenomics-Enriched Comprehensive Medication Management Program.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Article
- Public Interest in Population Genetic Screening for Cancer Risk.Frontiers in genetics · 2022Article
- Patients' and professionals' views related to ethical issues in precision medicine: a mixed research synthesis.BMC medical ethics · 2021Review
- IGNITE network: Response of patients to genomic medicine interventions.Molecular genetics & genomic medicine · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 9 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe IGNITE network funds six genomic medicine projects. Though interventions varied, we hypothesized that synergies across projects could be leveraged to better understand the participant experiences with genomic medicine interventions. Therefore, we performed cross-network analyses to identify associations between participant demographics and attitudes toward the intervention (attitude), plan to share results (share), and quality of life (QOL).
methodsData collection for demographics, attitude, share, and QOL surveys were standardized across projects. Recruitment and survey administration varied by each project's protocol.
resultsParticipants (N = 6,817) were 67.2% (N = 4,584) female, and 37.4% (N = 3,544) were minority. Mean age = 54.0 (sd 14.a). Younger participants were as follows: (1) more positive in attitude pre-intervention (1.15-fold decrease/10-year age increase (OR)) and more negative after (1.14-fold increase OR); (2) higher in QOL pre-intervention (1.07-fold increase OR) and postintervention; (3) more likely to share results (1.12-fold increase OR). Race was significant when sharing results (white participants increased OR = 1.88), but not for change in QOL pre-postintervention or attitude.
conclusionOur findings demonstrate the feasibility of this approach and identified a few key themes which are as follows: age was consistently significant across the three outcomes, whereas race had less of an impact than expected. However, these are only associations and thus warrant further study.
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.