Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32461668›Full record

ArticleGenetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics2020

How can Australia integrate routine genetic sequencing in oncology: a qualitative study through an implementation science lens.

Rosie O'Shea, Nicole M Rankin, Maira Kentwell, Margaret Gleeson, Lucinda Salmon, Katherine M Tucker, Sarah Lewis, Natalie Taylor

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

8 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Rosie O'SheaFaculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia. rosie.oshea@sydney.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9186-1644
Nicole M RankinFaculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Maira KentwellParkville Familial Cancer Centre, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre and Royal Melbourne Hospital, Parkville, VIC, Australia.
Margaret GleesonHunter Family Cancer Service, Newcastle, NSW, Australia.
Lucinda SalmonDepartment of Clinical Genetics, Austin Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Katherine M TuckerHereditary Cancer Clinic, Prince of Wales Hospital, University of New South Wales, UNSW, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Sarah LewisFaculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Natalie TaylorFaculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
The University of Sydney · AUAustin Health · AUHunter Genetics · AUThe Royal Melbourne Hospital · AUUNSW Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis study sought to determine genetics and oncology specialists' views of integrating BRCA1 and BRCA2 testing in epithelial ovarian and breast cancer into routine practice.

methodsQualitative interviews were designed using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Questions included experiences or views of the BRCA testing processes, implementation needs of oncology health professionals, perceived challenges, and future ideas for interventions to integrate genetic testing into oncology.

resultsTwenty-two participants were interviewed from twelve health organizations and four themes were identified: (1) embracing the shift to mainstream genetic testing, with the majority of participants viewing BRCA testing as clinically useful and routine use important for maintaining a patient centered process; (2) the need for communication networks and role delineation to integrate routine genetic testing; (3) factors that influence sustaining routine genetic testing, including ongoing training, resources and funding, real-world adaptation, system complexity, and champions; and (4) variation in system interventions for integrating routine genetic testing align to organizational context.

conclusionFindings illustrate the need for integrating genetic testing into routine oncology, and that adaptation of interventions and processes is essential to sustain a feasible model. An understanding of individual and organizational implementation factors will help to prepare for future integration of routine genetic testing in other cancers.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsImplementation ScienceAustraliaGenetic TestingHumansQualitative Researchinterventions and implementationmainstreamingoncologyroutine genetic testing

Identifiers

PMID32461668
OpenAlexW3029917177

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.