ArticleJournal of community genetics2020
Online BRCA1/2 screening in the Australian Jewish community: a qualitative study.
Article in Journal of community genetics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Patient decision support resources inform decisions about cancer susceptibility genetic testing and risk management: a systematic review of patient impact and experience.Frontiers in health services · 2023Review
- Multisystem Proteinopathy Due toGenes · 2022Review
- Unselected Population Genetic Testing for Personalised Ovarian Cancer Risk Prediction: A Qualitative Study Using Semi-Structured Interviews.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Patients' and professionals' perspective of non-in-person visits in hereditary cancer: predictors and impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2021Article
- Demonstrating 'respect for persons' in clinical research: findings from qualitative interviews with diverse genomics research participants.Journal of medical ethics · 2020Article
- Economic Evaluation of Population-BasedCancers · 2020Article
- Participant Reactions to a Literacy-Focused, Web-Based Informed Consent Approach for a Genomic Implementation Study.AJOB empirical bioethicsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Screening programmes for BRCA1/2 Jewish Founder mutations (JFM) in the Jewish community have been advocated internationally. Implementation of these programmes could decrease morbidity and mortality of BRCA1/2 JFM carriers through the uptake of cancer screening strategies and risk-reducing surgery. An online programme offered to the Sydney Jewish community that delivers pre-test information and collects consent for BRCA1/2 JFM testing via a website is currently being evaluated (JeneScreen). Forty-three participants from JeneScreen were invited to participate in a sub-study, of semi-structured pre- and post-result telephone interviews. Eleven participants consented to the sub-study. The interviews explored their experiences regarding the online model of obtaining pre-test genetic information, giving consent and receiving results. Inductive thematic analysis was carried out on the interviews. Overarching themes identified include (1) embracing online testing, (2) the online pre-test experience, (3) the result notification experience, (4) concerns associated with online testing and (5) testing as a responsibility. Overall, participants were highly satisfied with online BRCA1/2 JFM testing, an indication that the a website for pre-test information provision is an acceptable alternative to in-person genetic counselling for BRCA1/2 JFM screening and represents a feasible model for future community screening efforts.
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.