Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32994107›Full record

Trial reportPatient education and counseling2021

The impact of the number of tests presented and a provider recommendation on decisions about genetic testing for cancer risk.

Marci L B Schwartz, William M P Klein, Lori A H Erby, Christy H Smith, Debra L Roter

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report 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 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

5 authors.

Marci L B SchwartzNational Human Genome Research Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, USA; Genomic Medicine Institute, Geisinger, Danville, USA. Electronic address: mlbschwartz@geisinger.edu.
William M P KleinNational Human Genome Research Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, USA; Behavioral Research Program, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, USA.
Lori A H ErbyNational Human Genome Research Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, USA.
Christy H SmithDepartment of Genetic Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, USA.
Debra L RoterJohns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Department of Health, Behavior and Society, Baltimore, USA.

Funding

NHGRI/DIR Genetic Counseling Training ProgramZIEHG200353 · NHGRI · NATIONAL HUMAN GENOME RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI ERBY, LORI · 2010 to 2025
$16.9M
Intramural NIH HHS ZIE HG200353
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo determine how the method of presenting testing options and a provider recommendation can influence a decision about genetic testing for inherited cancer predispositions.

methodsAn online hypothetical vignette study was completed by 454 healthy volunteers. Participants were randomized to receive one of two survey versions which differed by genetic testing choice presentation. One group was shown three options simultaneously (no test, 5-gene or 15-gene), and a second group received the 15-gene option after choosing between the no test and 5-gene options. A preference-based provider recommendation was also incorporated. We examined the effect of these interventions on test selection.

resultsParticipants in the simultaneous group were more likely to choose a genetic test than those in the sequential group (OR: 2.35, p=0.003). This effect was no longer observed when individuals who had selected no-test in the sequential group were told about the 15-gene test (OR: 1.03 p=0.932). Incorporating a provider recommendation into the hypothetical scenario led to more preference-consistent choices (χ

conclusionsA larger menu of testing choices led to higher testing uptake. A preference-based clinician recommendation resulted in more preference-consistent choices. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: The structuring of testing options and preference-sensitive recommendations appear to facilitate informed testing decisions.

Indexed as

Genetic TestingNeoplasmsHumansSurveys and QuestionnairesBehavioral economicsCancer geneticsContext effectDecision makingGenetic testingHereditary cancerModerate penetrance genesMulti-Gene panel testingNumber of optionsProvider recommendationValues clarification

Identifiers

PMID32994107
PMCPMC7854998

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.