Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34010335›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2021

Health system interventions to integrate genetic testing in routine oncology services: A systematic review.

Rosie O'Shea, Natalie Taylor, Ashley Crook, Chris Jacobs, Yoon Jung Kang, Sarah Lewis, Nicole M Rankin

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Interventions to improve delivery of cancer genetics services in the United States: A scoping review.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2022
    Article
  16. Views and experiences of palliative care clinicians in addressing genetics with individuals and families: a qualitative study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2022
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Rosie O'SheaFaculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-9186-1644
Natalie TaylorFaculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Ashley CrookDiscipline of Genetic Counselling, Graduate School of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Chris JacobsDiscipline of Genetic Counselling, Graduate School of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Yoon Jung KangFaculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Sarah LewisFaculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Nicole M RankinFaculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
The University of Sydney · AUUniversity of Technology Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIntegration of genetic testing into routine oncology care could improve access to testing. This systematic review investigated interventions and the tailored implementation strategies aimed at increasing access to genetic counselling and testing and identifying hereditary cancer in oncology.

methodsThe search strategy results were reported using the PRISMA statement and four electronic databases were searched. Eligible studies included routine genetic testing for breast and ovarian cancer or uptake after universal tumour screening for colorectal or endometrial cancer. The titles and abstracts were reviewed and the full text articles screened for eligibility. Data extraction was preformed using a designed template and study appraisal was assessed using an adapted Newcastle Ottawa Scale. Extracted data were mapped to Proctor's et al outcomes and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and qualitatively synthesised.

resultsTwenty-seven studies, published up to May 2020, met the inclusion criteria. Twenty-five studies ranged from poor (72%), fair to good (28%) quality. Most interventions identified were complex (multiple components) such as; patient or health professional education, interdisciplinary practice and a documentation or system change. Forty-eight percent of studies with complex interventions demonstrated on average a 35% increase in access to genetic counselling and a 15% increase in testing completion. Mapping of study outcomes showed that 70% and 32% of the studies aligned with either the service and client or the implementation level outcome and 96% to the process or inner setting domains of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.

conclusionExisting evidence suggests that complex interventions have a potentially positive effect towards genetic counselling and testing completion rates in oncology services. Studies of sound methodological quality that explore a greater breadth of pre and post implementation outcomes and informed by theory are needed. Such research could inform future service delivery models for the integration of genetics into oncology services.

Indexed as

Implementation ScienceColorectal NeoplasmsEndometrial NeoplasmsFacilities and Services UtilizationFemaleGenetic CounselingGenetic TestingHumansMale

Identifiers

PMID34010335
PMCPMC8133413
OpenAlexW3163606411

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.