Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36272999›Full record

ArticleNPJ genomic medicine2022

Co-design, implementation, and evaluation of plain language genomic test reports.

Gemma R Brett, Aisha Ward, Sophie E Bouffler, Elizabeth E Palmer, Kirsten Boggs, Fiona Lynch, Amanda Springer, Amy Nisselle, Zornitza Stark

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in NPJ genomic medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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 at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Gemma R BrettVictorian Clinical Genetics Services, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. gemma.brett@vcgs.org.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0133-7994
Aisha WardThe University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Sophie E BoufflerAustralian Genomics, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Elizabeth E PalmerSydney Children's Hospitals Network, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1844-215X
Kirsten BoggsAustralian Genomics, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Fiona LynchThe University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Amanda SpringerMonash Genetics, Monash Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Amy NisselleThe University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Zornitza StarkVictorian Clinical Genetics Services, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8640-1371
The University of Melbourne · AUMelbourne Genomics Health Alliance · AUMonash Health · AUSydney Children’s Hospitals Network · AUUNSW Sydney · AU

Funding

Department of Health, Australian Government (Department of Health) MRFF GHFM76747
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Understanding and communicating genomic results can be challenging for families and health professionals without genetic specialty training. Unlike modifying existing laboratory reports, plain language genomic test reports provide an opportunity for patient/family-centered approaches. However, emerging examples generally lack co-design and/or evaluation in real-world settings. Through co-design involving patient groups, plain language experts, educators, and genetic health professionals, plain language genomic test report templates were produced for common test outcomes in rare diseases. Eight plain language genomic test report templates were developed. These reports were piloted and evaluated as part of a national pediatric ultra-rapid genomic testing program. Family and genetic health professional experiences with report layout, content, and use were explored using surveys. Of 154 families and 107 genetic health professionals issued with reports, 51 families and 57 clinicians responded (RR = 33% and 53%, respectively). Most families (82%) found their report helpful in understanding the result. Reports were shared by 63% of families, predominantly with family members (72%), or health professionals (68%). Clinicians (15%) adapted the reports for other settings. Through co-design, plain language genomic test reports implemented in a real-world setting can facilitate patient/family and caregiver understanding and communication of genomic test purpose, outcome, and potential clinical implications.

Identifiers

PMID36272999
PMCPMC9588009
OpenAlexW4307139775

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.