ArticleMolecular genetics & genomic medicine2020
Utilization of health information technology among cancer genetic counselors.
Article in Molecular genetics & genomic medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Videoconferencing to deliver genetics services: a systematic review of telegenetics in light of the COVID-19 pandemic.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2021Pooled it
- Leveraging Health Information Technology to Collect Family Cancer History: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.JCO clinical cancer informatics · 2021Pooled it
- Web-based tool for cancer family history collection: A prospective randomized controlled trial.Gynecologic oncology · 2023Trial
- Metrics Used for the Evaluation of Chatbots Providing Cancer Genetic Risk Assessment and Education: Systematic Review.JMIR AI · 2026Review
- Patient and providers' perspectives on using the GUÍA digital tool to enhance genomic results disclosure.Genetics in medicine open · 2025Article
- Lessons learned in migrating from one commercial genetics clinical decision-making tool to another: Assessment of data integrity and utilization.Genetics in medicine open · 2025Article
- Travel Distance Between Participants in US Telemedicine Sessions With Estimates of Emissions Savings: Observational Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Observational
- Room for improvement in capturing cancer family history in a gynecologic oncology outpatient setting.Gynecologic oncology reports · 2022Article
- Genome access and other web-based IT solutions: Genetic counseling in the digital era.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
- Pitfalls and challenges in genetic test interpretation: An exploration of genetic professionals experience with interpretation of results.Clinical genetics · 2021Article
- A thematic analysis of health information technology use among cancer genetic counselors.Journal of genetic counseling · 2021Article
- Utilization of health information technology among cancer genetic counselors.Molecular genetics & genomic medicine · 2020Article
- Timing ofCancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer CenterArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHealth information technology (IT) is becoming increasingly utilized by cancer genetic counselors (CGCs). We sought to understand the current engagement, satisfaction, and opportunities to adopt new health IT tools among CGCs.
methodsWe conducted a mixed-mode survey among 128 board-certified CGCs using both closed- and open-ended questions. We then evaluated the utilization and satisfaction among 10 types of health IT tools, including the following: cancer screening tool, family health history (FHx) collection tools, electronic health records (EHRs), telegenetics software, pedigree drawing software, genetic risk assessment tools, gene test panel ordering tools, electronic patient education tools, patient communication tools, and family communication tools.
resultsSeven of 10 health IT tools were used by a minority of CGCs. The vast majority of respondents reported using EHRs (95.2%) and genetic risk assessment tools (88.6%). Genetic test panel ordering software had the highest satisfaction rate (very satisfied and satisfied) at 80.0%, followed by genetic risk assessment tools (77.1%). EHRs had the highest dissatisfaction rate among CGCs at 18.3%. Dissatisfaction with a health IT tool was associated with desire to change: EHRs (p < .001), cancer screening tools (p = .010), genetic risk assessment tools (p = .024), and family history collection tools (p = .026). We found that nearly half of CGCs were considering adopting or changing their FHx tool (49.2%), cancer screening tool (44.9%), and pedigree drawing tool (41.8%).
conclusionOverall, CGCs reported high levels of satisfaction among commonly used health IT tools. Tools that enable the collection of FHx, cancer screening tools, and pedigree drawing software represent the greatest opportunities for research and development.
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.