ArticlePEC innovation2022
Developing video education materials for the return of genomic test results to parents and adolescents.
Article in PEC innovation, 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Strategies to facilitate the report-back of research results: a systematic review of methods and evaluations.Environmental health : a global access science source · 2026Pooled it
- Article
- Animated videos for childhood cancer precision medicine: development and evaluation with parents and patients.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025Article
- Engaging adolescents and young adults in decisions about return of genomic research results: study protocol for a mixed-methods longitudinal clinical trial protocol.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2024Article
- Engaging Adolescents and Young Adults in Decisions About Return of Genomic Research Results: a mixed-methods longitudinal clinical trial protocol.Research square · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objective: To describe the development, implementation, and revision of a video to provide information about genomic testing and the return of genomic research results to adolescents and parents. Methods: Formative, community-engaged research was conducted in three stages: development, implementation, and revision. Existing research participant advisory groups were used for focus groups and convenience sampling was used for interviews. Participants included parents, young adults without children, and adolescents. Transcripts of recorded sessions were used for formative analysis. Results: Video was the preferred format for delivering genomic testing information to adolescents during the development stage. During implementation, adolescents identified video length as an impediment to recall. During the revision stage, participants preferred the video in separate short segments, supported plan to require only one short video and leaving other short videos optional. Participants were divided on whether the required short video provided enough information, but all participants reported that watching additional videos would not have changed their decisions about receiving test results. Conclusion: Genomic education videos should be brief (<4 mins) to improve the odds that participants will view the entirety of any required video. Innovation: The development of participant materials should incorporate plans for monitoring implementation and plans for revising materials.
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.