Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32600382›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2020

Implementation considerations for offering personal genomic risk information to the public: a qualitative study.

Amelia K Smit, Gillian Reyes-Marcelino, Louise Keogh, Kate Dunlop, Ainsley J Newson, Anne E Cust

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Impact of personal genomic risk information on melanoma prevention behaviors and psychological outcomes: a randomized controlled trial.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2021
    Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Acceptability of risk-stratified population screening across cancer types: Qualitative interviews with the Australian public.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Amelia K SmitFaculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney School of Public Health, Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention Research, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. amelia.smit@sydney.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5712-220X
Gillian Reyes-MarcelinoFaculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney School of Public Health, Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention Research, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Louise KeoghMelbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia.
Kate DunlopFaculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney School of Public Health, Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention Research, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Ainsley J NewsonFaculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney School of Public Health, Sydney Health Ethics, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Anne E CustFaculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney School of Public Health, Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention Research, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
The University of Sydney · AUThe University of Melbourne · AU

Funding

Melanoma Institute Australia Postgraduate Research Scholarship N/ANational Health and Medical Research Council 1147843Sydney Catalyst Translational Cancer Research Centre N/AThe University of Sydney Cancer Strategic Priority Area for Research Collaboration (SPARC) Implementation Scheme N/A
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGenomic risk information, based on common genomic susceptibility variants associated with risk of complex diseases such as cancer, may be incorporated into personalised prevention and screening strategies. We aimed to engage with members of the public, who are important stakeholders in this process, to further inform program development and other implementation outcomes such as acceptability and appropriateness.

methodsSemi-structured interviews were undertaken with 30 participants (aged 24-69 years, 50% female) recruited from a pilot trial in which they received personalised genomic risk information for melanoma. We explored participants' views and attitudes towards offering general personal genomic risk information to the broader population. The data were analysed thematically.

resultsTwo overarching themes relevant to implementation considerations were identified. Firstly, participants' preferences for accepting an offer of genomic risk information were based on family history, disease incidence and the possibility of prevention. Secondly, participants felt that the processes for offering risk information should be based on individual preferences, triaged according to risk and be supported by a health professional trained in genomics.

conclusionsParticipants felt that offering personal genomic risk information to the general population to inform prevention and early detection recommendations is acceptable, particularly for common, complex conditions such as cancer. Understanding participants' preferences for receiving genomic risk information will assist with communication strategies and health workforce planning. We anticipate that these findings will contribute to the development of implementation strategies for incorporating genomic risk information into routine clinical practice.

Indexed as

Genetic TestingAdultAgedAttitudeClinical Trials as TopicCommunicationEarly Detection of CancerEmotionsFemaleGenomicsHumansMaleMelanomaMiddle AgedPatient Acceptance of Health CarePilot ProjectsEarly detectionGenomicsImplementationPopulationPreventionRisk

Identifiers

PMID32600382
PMCPMC7325160
OpenAlexW3039609740

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.