ArticleBreast cancer research and treatment2019
Talking about risk in the context of genomic tests (TARGET): development and evaluation of an educational program for clinicians.
Article in Breast cancer research and treatment, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- IMPARTER, Phase 1 of an intervention to improve patients' understanding of gene expression profiling tests in breast cancer.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2022Trial
- Evaluation of a novel communication workshop for healthcare professionals working with metastatic breast cancer patients.Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) · 2026Article
- A Delphi study on health literacy competencies for health professionals.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Improving patient understanding of GEP test results (IMPARTER4): an RCT.BMJ oncology · 2025Article
- Measuring health professionals' capability to respond to health consumers' health literacy needs: a scoping review.Health promotion international · 2024Article
- Observational
- Talking about Risk, UncertaintieS of Testing IN Genetics (TRUSTING): development and evaluation of an educational programme for healthcare professionals about BRCA1 & BRCA2 testing.British journal of cancer · 2022Article
- Strategies to Improve Recruitment to a De-escalation Trial: A Mixed-Methods Study of the OPTIMA Prelim Trial in Early Breast Cancer.Clinical oncology (Royal College of Radiologists (Great Britain)) · 2020Article
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
purposeGene expression profiling (GEP) test scores calculate risks of recurrence and likely benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy in ER-positive, HER2-negative, early-stage breast cancer. As health literacy and numeracy skills in the general population are poor, healthcare professionals (HCPs) require a wide repertoire of communication skills to explain clearly risk of recurrence scores (RSs) and uncertainty. We developed and evaluated an educational program for HCPs discussing GEP test results and adjuvant treatment.
methodsEight-hour workshops contained elements aimed at improving knowledge, communication skills and self-awareness; these included the science underpinning GEP tests, an interactive risk psychology lecture, exercises and facilitated group discussions regarding seven filmed scenarios involving discussions about high, intermediate and low RSs. Attendees were recorded explaining RSs with patient simulators pre and post workshop. Researchers, blinded to time point, analysed recordings using a study-specific scoring system. Primary objective outcomes were improvements post workshop in HCPs' competence and confidence when communicating 17 pre-specified key information areas. We estimated odds ratios (OR) using conditional logistic regression to compare pre- and post-workshop scores.
results65 HCPs attended. Objective analyses revealed significant positive shifts post workshop which included explaining GEP tests (OR 2.98; 95% CI 1.38-6.42; P = .001), recurrence RSs (OR 3.99; 95% CI 1.72-9.25; P < .001), benefits of chemotherapy (OR 3.99; 95% CI 1.82-8.75; P < .001; and harms OR 2.31; 95% CI 1.37-3.92; P < .001) using jargon free language (OR 5.29; 95% CI 2.27-12.35; P < .001). Patient simulator assessments also showed significant improvements as did HCPs' self-assessments and ratings of their self-confidence when discussing different GEP tests with diverse patient types (P < .001).
conclusionThese short, intensive, interactive TARGET workshops significantly improved HCPs' communication about GEP results in ways likely to promote more informed decision-making by patients about chemotherapy.
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.