Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35232494›Full record

ArticleBMC rheumatology2022

Public perceptions of predictive testing for rheumatoid arthritis compared to breast cancer and early-onset Alzheimer's disease: a qualitative study.

Juhi Singhal, Imogen Wells, Gwenda Simons, Sabine Wöhlke, Karim Raza, Marie Falahee

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC rheumatology, 2022. 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. Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
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

6 authors.

Juhi SinghalCollege of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0480-2591
Imogen WellsRheumatology Research Group, Institute of Inflammation and Ageing, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham Research Laboratories, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham, B15 2WB, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9975-5029
Gwenda SimonsRheumatology Research Group, Institute of Inflammation and Ageing, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham Research Laboratories, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham, B15 2WB, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2596-9101
Sabine WöhlkeDepartment of Health Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences, Hamburg University of Applied Sciences, Hamburg, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7679-085X
Karim RazaRheumatology Research Group, Institute of Inflammation and Ageing, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham Research Laboratories, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham, B15 2WB, UK.
Marie FalaheeRheumatology Research Group, Institute of Inflammation and Ageing, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham Research Laboratories, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham, B15 2WB, UK. m.falahee@bham.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5928-486X

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/P021220/1Riksbankens Jubileumsfond M13-0260:1Versus Arthritis 21560
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is increasing research focus on prediction and prevention of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Information about risk of RA is increasingly available via direct-to-consumer testing. However, there is limited understanding of public perceptions around predictive testing for RA. This study explores public perceptions of predictive testing for RA in comparison to breast cancer (BC) and early-onset Alzheimer's disease (AD).

methodsFour focus groups with 21 members of the public were conducted using hypothetical vignettes about predictive testing for each disease. Transcripts of focus group proceedings were analysed inductively using thematic analysis.

resultsThematic analysis of the data produced three key themes: decision-making factors, consequences, and consumer needs. Factors suggested that might influence decision-making about predictive testing included family history, fear, and perceived severity and treatability of the illness. RA was perceived to be less severe and more treatable than BC/AD. Potential consequences of predictive testing across all diseases included lifestyle modification, planning for the future and discrimination by employers or insurers. Predictive testing for RA was perceived to have less potential for negative psychological consequences than other diseases. Participants highlighted that individuals undertaking predictive testing should be signposted to appropriate support services and receive information on the accuracy of predictive testing. It was suggested that strategies to mitigate concerns regarding communication and confidentiality of risk results are required.

conclusionsThe findings of this study reflect public misunderstandings regarding RA that may impact the uptake of and responses to predictive testing, and key informational needs of individuals considering a predictive test. Predictive strategies should be accompanied by awareness-raising initiatives and informational resources.

Indexed as

Breast cancerEarly-onset Alzheimer’s diseaseFocus groupsPredictive testingRheumatoid arthritisRisk perception

Identifiers

PMID35232494
PMCPMC8889636

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.