ArticleEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2023
Perceived benefits and barriers to implementing precision preventive care: Results of a national physician survey.
Article in European journal of human genetics : EJHG, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Polygenic risk scores in the clinic: a systematic review of stakeholders' perspectives, attitudes, and experiences.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2025Pooled it
- Building capacity for genomics in primary care: a scoping review of practitioner attitudes, education needs, and enablers.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Preparing healthcare providers to use polygenic risk scores: a qualitative study of learning needs and educational preferences.BMJ open · 2026Article
- GP perspectives on genomics in primary care: a qualitative study on using polygenic risk scores to evaluate cancer risk.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2026Article
- Health care providers' perceptions of screening for risk of type 1 diabetes in newborns using genetic risk scores.Journal of community genetics · 2026Article
- Healthcare professionals' experiences returning monogenic, polygenic, and integrated risk results in the eMERGE study.HGG advances · 2026Article
- Polygenic risk scores in the clinic: Health-system leaders and primary care providers weigh in.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2025Article
- Association of Polygenic-Based Breast Cancer Risk Prediction With Patient Management.JCO precision oncology · 2025Article
- Attitudes regarding polygenic risk testing for lung cancer: a mixed-methods study.Annals of behavioral medicine : a publication of the Society of Behavioral Medicine · 2025Article
- Review
- The acceptability and clinical impact of using polygenic scores for risk-estimation of common cancers in primary care: a systematic review.Journal of community genetics · 2024Review
- Future implications of polygenic risk scores for life insurance underwriting.NPJ genomic medicine · 2024Review
- Data from a national survey of United States primary care physicians on genetic risk scores for common disease prevention.Data in brief · 2024Article
- Deep phenotyping and population-level data can help resolve genomic variants.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 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 at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Polygenic risk scores (PRS) may improve risk-stratification in preventive care. Their clinical implementation will depend on primary care physicians' (PCPs) uptake. We surveyed PCPs in a national physician database about the perceived clinical utility, benefits, and barriers to the use of PRS in preventive care. Among 367 respondents (participation rate 96.3%), mean (SD) age was 54.9 (12.9) years, 137 (37.3%) were female, and mean (SD) time since medical school graduation was 27.2 (13.3) years. Respondents reported greater perceived utility for more clinical action (e.g., earlier or more intensive screening, preventive medications, or lifestyle modification) for patients with high-risk PRS than for delayed or discontinued prevention actions for low-risk patients (p < 0.001). Respondents most often chose out-of-pocket costs (48%), lack of clinical guidelines (24%), and insurance discrimination concerns (22%) as extreme barriers. Latent class analysis identified 3 subclasses of respondents. Skeptics (n = 83, 22.6%) endorsed less agreement with individual clinical utilities, saw patient anxiety and insurance discrimination as significant barriers, and agreed less often that PRS could help patients make better health decisions. Learners (n = 134, 36.5%) and enthusiasts (n = 150, 40.9%) expressed similar levels of agreement that PRS had utility for preventive actions and that PRS could be useful for patient decision-making. Compared with enthusiasts, however, learners perceived greater barriers to the clinical use of PRS. Overall results suggest that PCPs generally endorse using PRS to guide medical decision-making about preventive care, and barriers identified suggest interventions to address their needs and concerns.
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.