Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33811254›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2021

Stakeholders' views of integrating universal tumour screening and genetic testing for colorectal and endometrial cancer into routine oncology.

Rosie O'Shea, Nicole M Rankin, Maira Kentwell, Margaret Gleeson, Katherine M Tucker, Heather Hampel, Natalie Taylor, Sarah Lewis

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of human genetics : EJHG, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
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, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Genotyping arrays, population genetic studies and clinical implications.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 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

8 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Rosie O'SheaFaculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia. rosie.oshea@sydney.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0002-9186-1644
Nicole M RankinFaculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Maira KentwellParkville Familial Cancer Centre, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre and Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Margaret GleesonHunter Family Cancer Service, Newcastle, NSW, Australia.
Katherine M TuckerHereditary Cancer Clinic, Prince of Wales Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Heather HampelDivision of Human Genetics, Department of Internal Medicine, The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, OH, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7558-9794
Natalie TaylorFaculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Sarah LewisFaculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
The University of Sydney · AUHunter Genetics · AUPrince of Wales Hospital · AUThe Ohio State University · USThe Royal Melbourne Hospital · AUUniversity of Technology Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Mainstream genetic testing in routine oncology care requires implementation research to inform intervention design. In Australia, funding is available for oncology health professionals (OHP) to organise genetic testing (GT) for eligible colorectal and endometrial cancer patients as part of their routine care. To assess the health system ability to incorporate this practice change, we conducted an implementation survey using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). The online survey was available from April to September 2020 to OHP and genetic health professional (GHP). In total, 198 respondents attempted the survey, with 158 completed and 27 partial responses: 26% were GHP, 66% OHP and 8% pathologists. Of all responders, 50% were female, mainly practicing in public hospital settings (57%) in an urban location (80%) and with an 18-60 years plus age range. The majority of respondents saw the relative advantage of aligning GT to abnormal universal tumour screening (UTS) results, with 77% of GHP and 78% of OHP agreeing it would streamline care for patients. There was disagreement across healthcare professional groups about knowledge and self-efficacy, with 45% of GHP not viewing oncologists as 'feeling confident' to use genetic test results for treatment management decisions, while 62% of OHP felt confident in their ability. Both OHP and GHP's indicated embedding a genetic counsellor in oncology or having a genetics point of contact to support integrating of GT through UTS as favourable interventions. Implementation research findings allow for the design of targeted interventions and a model for GT integration into oncology.

Indexed as

AttitudeColorectal NeoplasmsEndometrial NeoplasmsGenetic TestingMass ScreeningAdultFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedStakeholder ParticipationYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID33811254
PMCPMC8560784
OpenAlexW3143591890

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.