Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37344572›Full record

ReviewEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2023

Interventions to support patients with sharing genetic test results with at-risk relatives: a synthesis without meta-analysis (SWiM).

Lisa Marie Ballard, Rebecca Band, Anneke M Lucassen

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review 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 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
5.6field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. An Ethical Approach to Genomic Privacy Preserving Technology Development.Proceedings. IEEE International Conference on Healthcare Informatics · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Why don't we all use genomic testing?European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2023
    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

3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Lisa Marie BallardClinical Ethics, Law and Society (CELS), Primary Care, Population Sciences and Medical Education, University of Southampton, Southampton General Hospital, South Academic Block, Tremona Road, Southampton, SO16 6YD, UK. l.ballard@soton.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-1017-4322
Rebecca BandHealth Sciences, Highfield Campus, University Road, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK.
Anneke M LucassenClinical Ethics, Law and Society (CELS), Primary Care, Population Sciences and Medical Education, University of Southampton, Southampton General Hospital, South Academic Block, Tremona Road, Southampton, SO16 6YD, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3324-4338
Centre for Human Genetics · GBSouthampton General Hospital · GBUniversity of Southampton · GB

Funding

Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 208053/Z/17/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Whilst the finding of heritable susceptibility to disease was once relatively rare, mainstreaming of genetic testing has resulted in a steady increase. Patients are often encouraged to share their genetic test results with relevant relatives, but relatives may not receive this information, leaving them without knowledge of their own risk. Therefore, strategies to help communicate such information are important. This review aimed to explore the efficacy of existing interventions to improve the sharing of genetic test results. A synthesis without meta-analysis design was used. A systematic search of Medline, CINAHL, PsychINFO, and AMED was conducted, and five studies were identified worldwide. Data were extracted for each study regarding study aim, participant characteristics, condition, intervention details, comparison, study duration, outcome measures, theory and behaviour change techniques used. Limited efficacy and application of theory was found. Knowledge, motivation and self-efficacy were not increased in any intervention. No gender differences in communication behaviour were encountered in interventions that recruited men and women. Two studies reported an evaluation of acceptability, which showed that the interventions were well received by patients and health professionals. No study reported the involvement of the target population in any phase of intervention development. Given the lack of health psychology-informed interventions in this area of clinical genetics, we recommend genetic health professionals, health psychologists and patients collaborate on all stages of future interventions that involve the cascading of genetic health information within families. We also provide guidance regarding use of theory and intervention elements for future intervention development.

Indexed as

Health PersonnelPatientsFemaleGenetic TestingHumansMale

Identifiers

PMID37344572
PMCPMC10474271
OpenAlexW4381598647

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.