Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34153821›Full record

ArticleSocial science & medicine (1982)2021

Theory utilization in current communication of cancer genetic testing research: Identified gaps and opportunities.

Daniel Chavez-Yenter, Jingsong Zhao, Chelsea L Ratcliff, Kelsey Kehoe, Allison Blumling, Emily Peterson, William M P Klein, Wen-Ying Sylvia Chou, Kimberly A Kaphingst

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Social science & medicine (1982), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

9 authors.

Daniel Chavez-YenterDepartment of Communication, University of Utah, 255 S. Central Campus Drive, RM 2400, Salt Lake City, UT, 84112, USA; Cancer Control and Population Sciences, Huntsman Cancer Institute, 2000 Circle of Hope, HCI Research South Rm 4503, Salt Lake City, UT, 84112, USA. Electronic address: daniel.chavez-yenter@utah.edu.
Jingsong ZhaoRollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Chelsea L RatcliffDepartment of Communication Studies, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA.
Kelsey KehoeCancer Control and Population Sciences, Huntsman Cancer Institute, 2000 Circle of Hope, HCI Research South Rm 4503, Salt Lake City, UT, 84112, USA.
Allison BlumlingDepartment of Communication, University of Utah, 255 S. Central Campus Drive, RM 2400, Salt Lake City, UT, 84112, USA.
Emily PetersonAnnenberg School of Communication and Journalism, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
William M P KleinBehavioral Research Program, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD, USA.
Wen-Ying Sylvia ChouHealth Communication and Informatics Research Branch, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD, USA.
Kimberly A KaphingstDepartment of Communication, University of Utah, 255 S. Central Campus Drive, RM 2400, Salt Lake City, UT, 84112, USA; Cancer Control and Population Sciences, Huntsman Cancer Institute, 2000 Circle of Hope, HCI Research South Rm 4503, Salt Lake City, UT, 84112, USA.

Funding

NCI NIH HHS HHSN261201700078P
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEffective communication of cancer-related genetic and genomic testing (CGT) with patients and the public is paramount to transforming and managing cancer prevention, detection, and care. Behavioral and social science theories could improve communication effectiveness and, in turn, health outcomes.

methodsIn this study, we characterized the use of theory in recent research on communication about CGT from 2010 to 2017.

resultsOf 513 empirical papers focusing on communication about CGT, only 119 (23%) utilized any theory in the study design. Behavior change and health psychology/cognitive representation theories (24.2% and 21.9%, respectively) were the most commonly used with minimal use of communication theories (3%). Theories were primarily used to guide hypotheses or research question development (73.9%), and for selecting measures or codes (68.9%). Approximately half of the papers (48.3%) related their study findings to the referenced theory. Fewer papers (14.3%) discussed implications of the findings for the theory.

conclusionsWhile theories are being utilized to inform study design, few discuss their results in the context of theoretical implications and thus decrease potential generalizability. Greater use of theory could help scholars to identify and develop theories suited to this clinical context and inform our understanding of related communication processes more broadly.

Indexed as

Genetic TestingNeoplasmsCommunicationHumansResearchBehavior changeCancer genetic testingCommunicationHealth psychologyScoping reviewTheory

Identifiers

PMID34153821
PMCPMC8723834

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.