Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32125658›Full record

ArticleJournal of community genetics2020

How genomic information is accessed in clinical practice: an electronic survey of UK general practitioners.

W R H Evans, J Tranter, I Rafi, J Hayward, N Qureshi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 12 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. An online compendium of treatable genetic disorders.American journal of medical genetics. Part C, Seminars in medical genetics · 2021
    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

5 authors.

W R H EvansPrimary Care Stratified Medicine (PRISM) Group, Division of Primary Care, University of Nottingham, University Park Campus, Nottingham, NG7 2RD, UK. William.Evans1@nottingham.ac.uk.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0337-1221
J TranterPrimary Care Stratified Medicine (PRISM) Group, Division of Primary Care, University of Nottingham, University Park Campus, Nottingham, NG7 2RD, UK.
I RafiI.M.B.E, St George's, University of London, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9673-9675
J HaywardYorkshire and Humber NHS Genomic Medicine Centre, Chapel Allerton Hospital, Leeds, UK.
N QureshiPrimary Care Stratified Medicine (PRISM) Group, Division of Primary Care, University of Nottingham, University Park Campus, Nottingham, NG7 2RD, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4909-0644

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Genomic technologies are having an increasing impact across medicine, including primary care. To enable their wider adoption and realize their potential, education of primary health-care practitioners will be required. To enable the development of such resources, understanding where GPs currently access genomic information is needed. One-hundred fifty-nine UK GPs completed the survey in response to an open invitation, between September 2017 and September 2018. Questions were in response to 4 clinical genomic scenarios, with further questions exploring resources used for rare disease patients, direct-to-consumer genetic testing and collecting a family history. Respondents were most commonly GP principals (independent GPs who own their clinic) (64.8%), aged 35-49 years (54%), worked as a GP for more than 15 years (44%) and practiced within suburban locations (typically wealthier) (50.3%). The most popular 'just in time' education source for all clinical genomic scenarios were online primary care focussed resources with general Internet search engines also popular. For genomic continuous medical education, over 70% of respondents preferred online learning. Considering specific scenarios, local guidelines were a popular resource for the familial breast cancer scenario. A large proportion (41%) had not heard of Genomics England's 100,000 genome project. Few respondents (4%) would access rare disease specific Internet resources (Orphanet, OMIM). Twenty-five percent of respondents were unsure how to respond to a direct-to-consumer commercial genetic test query, with 41% forwarding such queries to local genetic services. GPs require concise, relevant, primary care focussed resources in trusted and familiar online repositories of information. Inadequate genetic education of GPs could increase burden on local genetic services.

Indexed as

Clinical careFamily healthFamily health historyGenomicsPrimary carePrimary health careRare disease

Identifiers

PMID32125658
PMCPMC7295869

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.