Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32820245›Full record

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

Health-care practitioners' preferences for the return of secondary findings from next-generation sequencing: a discrete choice experiment.

Shan Jiang, Aslam H Anis, Ian Cromwell, Tima Mohammadi, Kasmintan A Schrader, Janet Lucas, Christine M Armour, Marc Clausen, Yvonne Bombard, Dean A Regier

Abstract 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 12 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 4 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, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

10 authors.

Shan JiangSchool of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Aslam H AnisSchool of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Ian CromwellCanadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control (ARCC), Cancer Control Research, BC Cancer, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Tima MohammadiCentre for Health Evaluation and Outcome Sciences, St. Paul's Hospital, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Kasmintan A SchraderDepartment of Medical Genetics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Janet LucasSaskatchewan Health Authority, Saskatoon, SK, Canada.
Christine M ArmourDepartment of Genetics, Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, and Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Marc ClausenLi Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Unity Health Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Yvonne BombardLi Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Unity Health Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Dean A RegierSchool of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada. dean.regier@ubc.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8876-0511

Funding

CIHR
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeHealth-care practitioners' (HCPs) preferences for returning secondary findings (SFs) will influence guideline compliance, shared decision-making, and patient health outcomes. This study aimed to estimate HCPs' preferences and willingness to support the return (WTSR) of SFs in Canada.

methodsA discrete choice experiment estimated HCPs' preferences for the following attributes: disease risk, clinical utility, health consequences, prior experience, and patient preference. We analyzed responses with an error component mixed logit model and predicted WTSR using scenario analyses.

resultsTwo hundred fifty participants of 583 completed the questionnaire (completion rate: 42.9%). WTSR was significantly influenced by patient preference and SF outcome characteristics. HCPs' WTSR was 78% (95% confidence interval: 74-81%) when returning SFs with available medical treatment, high penetrance, severe health consequences, and patient's preference for return. Genetics professionals had a higher WTSR than HCPs of other types when returning SFs with clinical utility and patient preference to know. HCPs >55 years of age were more likely to return SFs compared with younger HCPs.

conclusionThis study identified factors that influence WTSR of SFs and indicates that HCPs make tradeoffs between patient preference and other outcome characteristics. The results can inform clinical scenarios and models aiming to understand shared decision-making, patient and family opportunity to benefit, and cost-effectiveness.

Indexed as

Choice BehaviorPatient PreferenceCanadaHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansSurveys and Questionnairesdiscrete choice experimentnext-generation sequencingprecision medicinesecondary findingsshared decision-making

Identifiers

PMID32820245

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.