Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31049413›Full record

ArticleBJGP open2019

GP attitudes to and expectations for providing personal genomic risk information to the public: a qualitative study.

Amelia K Smit, Ainsley J Newson, Louise Keogh, Megan Best, Kate Dunlop, Kylie Vuong, Judy Kirk, Phyllis Butow, Lyndal Trevena, Anne E Cust

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

Article in BJGP open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Impact of personal genomic risk information on melanoma prevention behaviors and psychological outcomes: a randomized controlled trial.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2021
    Trial
  4. GP perspectives on genomics in primary care: a qualitative study on using polygenic risk scores to evaluate cancer risk.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

10 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Amelia K SmitPhD Candidate, Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention Research, Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Ainsley J NewsonAssociate Professor, Sydney Health Ethics, Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Louise KeoghAssociate Professor, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Megan BestPost-doctoral Fellow, School of Psychology, Psycho-Oncology Co-Operative Research Group (PoCoG), The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Kate DunlopDirector, The Centre for Genetics Education, NSW Health, Sydney, Australia.
Kylie VuongSenior Lecturer, School of Public Health and Community Medicine, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
Judy KirkAssociate Professor, Westmead Clinical School and Westmead Institute for Medical Research, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Phyllis ButowProfessor, Centre for Medical Psychology and Evidence-Based Decision-Making, School of Psychology, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Lyndal TrevenaProfessor, Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Anne E CustAssociate Professor, Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention Research, Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Sydney Local Health District · AUUniversity of Sydney · AUFaculty of Public Health · GBUniversity of Melbourne · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAs part of a pilot randomised controlled trial examining the impact of personal melanoma genomic risk information on behavioural and psychosocial outcomes, GPs were sent a booklet containing their patient's genomic risk of melanoma.

aimUsing this booklet as an example of genomic risk information that might be offered on a population-level in the future, this study explored GP attitudes towards communicating genomic risk information and resources needed to support this process. DESIGN &

settingSemi-structured interviews were conducted with 22 Australian GPs.

methodThe interviews were recorded and transcribed, and data were analysed thematically.

resultsGPs in this sample believed that communicating genomic risk may become a responsibility within primary care and they recommended a shared decisionmaking approach to guide the testing process. Factors were identified that may influence how and when GPs communicate genomic risk information. GPs view genomics-based risk as one of many disease risk factors and feel that this type of information could be applied in practice in the context of overall risk assessment for diseases for which prevention and early detection strategies are available. They believe it is important to ensure that patients understand their genomic risk and do not experience long-term adverse psychological responses. GPs desire clinical practice guidelines that specify recommendations for genomic risk assessment and patient management, point-of-care resources, and risk prediction tools that include genomic and traditional risk factors.

conclusionThese findings will inform the development of resources for preparing GPs to manage and implement genomic risk information in practice.

Identifiers

PMID31049413
PMCPMC6480852
OpenAlexW2916071824

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.