Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34727336›Full record

ArticleJournal of community genetics2022

Stakeholder attitudes towards establishing a national genomics registry of inherited cancer predisposition: a qualitative study.

Bettina Meiser, Melissa Monnik, Rachel Austin, Cassandra Nichols, Elisa Cops, Lucinda Salmon, Amanda B Spurdle, Finlay Macrae, Natalie Taylor, Nicholas Pachter and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of community genetics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Evaluating the Educational Value of Cancer Registries - a Systematic Review and Thematic Analysis.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2024
    Pooled it
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

12 authors.

Bettina MeiserPsychosocial Research Group, Prince of Wales Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, Australia. b.meiser@unsw.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5086-0784
Melissa MonnikAdult Genetics Unit, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, Australia.
Rachel AustinGenetic Health Queensland, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Herston, Queensland, Australia.
Cassandra NicholsGenetic Services of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.
Elisa CopsParkville Familial Cancer Centre, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre and Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Australia.
Lucinda SalmonClinical Genetics, Austin Health, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia.
Amanda B SpurdleMolecular Cancer Epidemiology Laboratory, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Herston, Queensland, Australia.
Finlay MacraeParkville Familial Cancer Centre, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre and Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Australia.
Natalie TaylorDaffodil Centre, The University of Sydney, a joint venture with Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, Australia.
Nicholas PachterGenetic Services of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.
Paul JamesParkville Familial Cancer Centre, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre and Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Australia.
Rajneesh KaurPsychosocial Research Group, Prince of Wales Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, Australia.

Funding

cancer council nsw CSR 18-01
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study aimed to describe the acceptability and perceived barriers and enablers to establish a national registry targeting carriers of pathogenic variants in cancer susceptibility genes from stakeholders' perspectives. Such a registry may effectively target carriers to translate existing research findings into optimised clinical care and provide a population-level resource for further clinical research and new gene and therapy discovery. In-depth interviews were conducted with individuals from four stakeholder groups: carriers of pathogenic variants, healthcare professionals, data custodians from the field of familial cancer, and heads of molecular pathology laboratories. Interview data were subjected to a qualitative analysis guided by a thematic analysis framework using NVivo software. A total of 28 individuals were interviewed: 11 carriers, 8 healthcare professionals, 5 laboratory heads, and 4 data custodians. All carriers and healthcare professionals were enthusiastic about the potential research applications of the registry. Carriers described that altruistic motivations provided the foundation of their support of the planned registry. Some carriers felt comfortable with a broad consent (consenting once, prospectively), while others preferred a narrow consent approach (consenting each time data is accessed). Some carriers and data custodians and registry developers also expressed a reluctance to link family member data without appropriate consent. Participants' enthusiasm and support for a national registry herald a productive and responsive research partnership once the registry has been established. Participants' views can be used to inform the approaches to be taken to develop and manage such a registry as an implicit codesign approach.

Indexed as

AttitudesCarriersDatabaseGenomicsInherited cancerRegistryStakeholder

Identifiers

PMID34727336
PMCPMC8799807

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.