ArticleGenetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics2021
Patients' and professionals' perspective of non-in-person visits in hereditary cancer: predictors and impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Article in Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Living with rare genetic disease during the COVID-19 pandemic: A qualitative study of adolescents and young adults with Li-Fraumeni syndrome.Rare (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2024Article
- The role of virtual consultations in cancer genetics: challenges and opportunities introduced by the COVID-19 pandemic.BJC reports · 2023Review
- Needs and Preferences for Remote-Delivered Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy in Patients After Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Qualitative Study.Global advances in integrative medicine and healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo identify predictors of patient acceptance of non-in-person cancer genetic visits before and after the COVID-19 pandemic and assess the preferences of health-care professionals.
methodsProspective multicenter cohort study (N = 578, 1 February 2018-20 April 2019) and recontacted during the COVID-19 lockdown in April 2020. Health-care professionals participated in May 2020. Association of personality traits and clinical factors with acceptance was assessed with multivariate analysis.
resultsBefore COVID-19, videoconference was more accepted than telephone-based visits (28% vs. 16% pretest, 30% vs. 19% post-test). Predictors for telephone visits were age (pretest, odds ratio [OR] 10-year increment = 0.79; post-test OR 10Y = 0.78); disclosure of panel testing (OR = 0.60), positive results (OR = 0.52), low conscientiousness group (OR = 2.87), and post-test level of uncertainty (OR = 0.93). Predictors for videoconference were age (pretest, OR 10Y = 0.73; post-test, OR 10Y = 0.75), educational level (pretest: OR = 1.61), low neuroticism (pretest, OR = 1.72), and post-test level of uncertainty (OR = 0.96). Patients' reported acceptance for non-in-person visits after COVID-19 increased to 92% for the pretest and 85% for the post-test. Health-care professionals only preferred non-in-person visits for disclosure of negative results (83%).
conclusionThese new delivery models need to recognize challenges associated with age and the psychological characteristics of the population and embrace health-care professionals' preferences.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.