ArticleCirculation. Genomic and precision medicine2022
Patient and Clinician Perceptions of Precision Cardiology Care: Findings From the HeartCare Study.
Article in Circulation. Genomic and precision medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluating the Acceptability of Virtual Preventive Genetic Counseling Supporting Adult Primary Care Practices.Journal of general internal medicine · 2026Article
- An integrated cardiometabolic genetic testing program in a predominantly Hispanic population within a community setting.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRoutine genome-wide screening for cardiovascular disease risk may inform clinical decision-making. However, little is known about whether clinicians and patients would find such testing useful or acceptable within the context of a genomics-enabled learning health system.
methodsWe conducted surveys with patients and their clinicians who were participating in the HeartCare Study, a precision cardiology care project that returned results from a next-generation sequencing panel of 158 genes associated with cardiovascular disease risk. Six weeks after return of results, we assessed patients' and clinicians' perceived utility and disutility of HeartCare, the effect of the test on clinical recommendations, and patients' attitudes toward integration of research and clinical care.
resultsAmong 666 HeartCare patients with a result returned during the survey study period, 42.0% completed a full or partial survey. Patient-participants who completed a full survey (n=224) generally had positive perceptions of HeartCare independent of whether they received a positive or negative result. Most patient-participants considered genetic testing for cardiovascular disease risk to have more benefit than risk (88.3%) and agreed that it provided information that they wanted to know (81.2%), while most disagreed that the test caused them to feel confused (77.7%) or overwhelmed (78.0%). For 122 of their patients with positive results, clinicians (n=13) reported making changes in clinical care for 66.4% of patients, recommending changes in health behaviors for 36.9% of patients, and recommending to 33.6% of patients that their family members have clinical testing.
conclusionsBoth patients and clinicians thought the HeartCare panel screen for cardiovascular disease risk provided information that was useful in terms of personal or health benefits to the patient and that informed clinical care without causing patients to be confused or overwhelmed. Further research is needed to assess perceptions of genome-wide screening among the US cardiology clinic population.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.