Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33373667›Full record

ArticleContemporary clinical trials2021

Design of a study to implement population-based risk assessment for hereditary cancer genetic testing in primary care.

Deborah J Bowen, Catharine Wang, Allison M Cole, Barbara M Norquist, Sarah Knerr, Beth Devine, Brian Shirts, Kevin Cain, Heather M Harris, Helen G Haile and 1 more

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Contemporary clinical trials, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Primary care provider practices, attitudes, and confidence with hereditary cancer risk assessment and testing: A mixed methods study.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2025
    Article
  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

11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Deborah J BowenUniversity of Washington, 1959 NE Pacific St, Box 357120, Seattle, WA 98195, USA. Electronic address: dbowen@uw.edu.
Catharine WangBoston University, 801 Massachusetts Avenue, Boston, MA 02218, USA. Electronic address: clwang@bu.edu.
Allison M ColeUniversity of Washington, 1959 NE Pacific St, Box 357120, Seattle, WA 98195, USA. Electronic address: acole2@uw.edu.
Barbara M NorquistUniversity of Washington, 1959 NE Pacific St, Box 357120, Seattle, WA 98195, USA. Electronic address: bnorquis@uw.edu.
Sarah KnerrUniversity of Washington, 1959 NE Pacific St, Box 357120, Seattle, WA 98195, USA. Electronic address: saknerr@uw.edu.
Beth DevineUniversity of Washington, 1959 NE Pacific St, Box 357120, Seattle, WA 98195, USA. Electronic address: bdevine@uw.edu.
Brian ShirtsUniversity of Washington, 1959 NE Pacific St, Box 357120, Seattle, WA 98195, USA. Electronic address: shirtsb@uw.edu.
Kevin CainUniversity of Washington, 1959 NE Pacific St, Box 357120, Seattle, WA 98195, USA. Electronic address: cain@uw.edu.
Heather M HarrisUniversity of Washington, 1959 NE Pacific St, Box 357120, Seattle, WA 98195, USA. Electronic address: gholston@uw.edu.
Helen G HaileUniversity of Washington, 1959 NE Pacific St, Box 357120, Seattle, WA 98195, USA. Electronic address: hghaile@uw.edu.
Elizabeth M SwisherUniversity of Washington, 1959 NE Pacific St, Box 357120, Seattle, WA 98195, USA. Electronic address: swishere@uw.edu.
University of Washington · USBoston University · US

Funding

Implementing the moon: Getting genomic testing to the publicU01CA232795 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI SWISHER, ELIZABETH MARY · 2019 to 2020
$5.8M
NCI NIH HHS U01 CA232795
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Identifying patients with high genetic risk for cancer has important clinical ramifications, but hereditary cancer risk is often not identified because of testing barriers at both the provider and patient level. It is unknown how to best implement appropriate genetic testing and follow-up care into an operating primary care clinic. Implementation studies to date have been conducted in high resourced facilities under optimal conditions, often not at the clinic level. This study aims to compare and evaluate two population-wide engagement strategies for identifying members of a primary care clinic's population with a family or personal history of cancer and offering high-risk individuals genetic testing for cancer susceptibility mutations. The two engagement strategies are: 1) point of care screening (POC), conducted when a patient is scheduled for an appointment and 2) direct patient engagement (DPE), where outreach provides the patient an opportunity to complete screening online on their own time. The study will identify changes, problems, and inefficiencies in clinical flow during and after the implementation of risk assessment and genomic testing for cancer risk across primary care clinics. It will also evaluate the effects of the two engagement strategies on patient, provider, and clinic leader outcomes, including perceptions of benefits, harms, and satisfaction with the engagement strategy and process of cancer risk assessment and genetic testing, across gender, racial/ethnic, socioeconomic, and genetic literacy divides. Finally, the study will evaluate the cost-effectiveness and budget impact of each engagement strategy.

Indexed as

Genetic Predisposition to DiseaseNeoplasmsGenetic TestingHumansPrimary Health CareRisk AssessmentGeneticsHereditary cancerImplementationPrimary careRisk assessmentScreening

Identifiers

PMID33373667
PMCPMC8075171
OpenAlexW3116638599

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.