Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33887738›Full record

ArticlePublic health genomics2021

Factors Influencing Discussion of Cancer Genetic Testing with Health-Care Providers in a Population-Based Survey.

Sukh Makhnoon, Robert Yu, Sonia A Cunningham, Susan K Peterson, Sanjay Shete

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Public health genomics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Primary and Secondary Prevention Interventions to Reduce Risk Factors Associated with Colorectal Cancer in High-Risk Groups: a Systematic Literature Review.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2023
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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.

Sukh MakhnoonDepartment of Behavioral Science, UT MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
Robert YuDepartment of Biostatistics, UT MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
Sonia A CunninghamDepartment of Epidemiology, UT MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
Susan K PetersonDepartment of Behavioral Science, UT MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
Sanjay SheteDepartment of Biostatistics, UT MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.

Funding

Tumor Evolution and Metastasis ProgramP30CA016672 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI DIANE BODURKA · 1985 to 2026
$290.8M
Multilevel investigation of uncertain and reclassified genomic variants in clinical oncologyK99CA256216 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI MAKHNOON, SUKH · 2021 to 2022
$216k
NCI NIH HHS K99 CA256216NCI NIH HHS P30 CA016672
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionDiscussion of cancer genetic testing with health-care providers (HCPs) is necessary to undergo testing to inform cancer risk assessment and prevention. Given the rapid evolution in genetic testing practice in oncology, we describe the current landscape of population-level cancer genetic testing behaviors.

methodsA questionnaire including items regarding discussion of cancer genetic testing with HCPs was administered to a nonprobability sample (N = 2,029) of the Texas population.

resultsOverall, 11% of respondents discussed cancer genetic testing with HCPs. In multivariable analysis, discussion was significantly related to having a personal history of breast/ovarian/colon cancer (OR = 11.57, 95% CI = 5.34-25.03), personal history of other cancer (OR = 3.18, 95% CI = 1.69-5.97), and health information-seeking behaviors (OR = 1.73, 95% CI = 1.12-2.66). Surprisingly, respondents who believed that inherited predispositions in addition to other modifiable risk factors cause cancer were less likely to discuss genetic testing compared to those who did not believe that inherited cancer predispositions cause cancer (OR = 0.54, 95% CI = 0.36-0.79). DISCUSSION: The high discussion rate may be attributed to increased public awareness of genetic testing and adoption of more inclusive clinical genetic testing guidelines. The findings suggest that efforts to increase public awareness of the utility of genetic testing on personalized cancer risk assessment and cancer prevention are needed.

Indexed as

Genetic TestingOvarian NeoplasmsFemaleHealth PersonnelHumansMedical OncologySurveys and QuestionnairesCancerDiscussionGenetic testingHealthcare providers

Identifiers

PMID33887738
PMCPMC8355036

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.