Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32197930›Full record

ArticlePatient education and counseling2021

Involving patients and their families in deciding to use next generation sequencing: Results from a nationally representative survey of U.S. oncologists.

Lisa P Spees, Megan C Roberts, Andrew N Freedman, Eboneé N Butler, William M P Klein, Irene Prabhu Das, Janet S de Moor

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

Article in Patient education and counseling, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 25% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Lisa P SpeesDepartment of Health Policy and Management, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, USA; Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, USA. Electronic address: lspees21@email.unc.edu.
Megan C RobertsLineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, USA; Eshelman School of Pharmacy, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, USA.
Andrew N FreedmanDivision of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, USA.
Eboneé N ButlerDivision of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, USA.
William M P KleinDivision of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, USA.
Irene Prabhu DasOffice of the Director, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, USA.
Janet S de MoorDivision of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, USA.
National Cancer Institute · USUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · USNational Institutes of Health · US

Funding

North Carolina Translational and Clinical Science Institute (NC TraCS) KL2KL2TR002490 · NCATS · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI WEINBERGER, MORRIS · 2018 to 2022
$11.0M
Cancer Care Quality Training ProgramT32CA116339 · NCI · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI ETHAN M. BASCH, Stephanie Brooke Wheeler · 2018 to 2026
$3.0M
NCATS NIH HHS KL2 TR002490NCI NIH HHS HHSN261201000086CNCI NIH HHS HHSN261201400011CNCI NIH HHS HHSN261201400011INCI NIH HHS T32 CA116339
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveNext generation sequencing (NGS) may aid in tumor classification and treatment. Barriers to shared decision-making may influence use of NGS. We examined, from oncologists' perspectives, whether barriers to involving patients/families in decision-making were associated with NGS use.

methodsUsing data from the first national survey of medical oncologists' perspectives on precision medicine (N = 1281), we approached our analyses in two phases. Bivariate analyses initially evaluated associations between barriers to involving patients/families in deciding to use NGS and provider- and organizational-level characteristics. Modified Poisson regressions then examined associations between patient/family barriers and NGS use.

resultsApproximately 59 % of oncologists reported at least one barrier to involving patients/families in decision-making regarding NGS use. Those reporting patient/family barriers tended to have fewer genomic resources at their practices, to be in rural or suburban areas, and to have a higher proportion of Medicaid patients. However, these barriers were not associated with NGS use.

conclusionsOncologists encounter barriers to involving patients/families in NGS testing decisions. Organizational barriers may also potentially play a role in testing decisions. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: To foster patient-centered care, strategies to support patient involvement in genomic testing decisions are needed, particularly among practices in low-resource settings.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsOncologistsHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansPatient ParticipationPrecision MedicineSurveys and QuestionnairesBarrierCancerGenomic testingProvider communication

Identifiers

PMID32197930
PMCPMC7484216
OpenAlexW3009083390

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.