ArticleGenetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics2025
Primary care provider practices, attitudes, and confidence with hereditary cancer risk assessment and testing: A mixed methods study.
Article in Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Streamlining Inherited Cancer Identification via an EMR-Integrated Risk Assessment Platform: A Nonrandomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2026Trial
- Understanding patient perspectives on breast cancer risk: a qualitative study to inform genetic testing communication in the primary care setting.Journal of community genetics · 2026Article
- Primary care stakeholder perspectives on clinical implementation of patient-reported hereditary cancer risk-assessment.BMC primary care · 2026Article
- Tumor risks and surveillance outcomes inEndocrine oncology (Bristol, England) · 2026Article
- Assessment of local provider engagement of an in-home collaborative model for remote genetic services.Genetics in medicine open · 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThis study sought to better understand primary care providers' readiness to conduct population-based risk assessment and offer genetic testing for hereditary cancer.
methodsSixty primary care providers completed a survey assessing their current practices, attitudes, and confidence with cancer risk assessment and testing. Sixteen participated in follow-up interviews. Descriptive statistics are presented and supported by qualitative data.
resultsProviders preferred direct questioning over standardized screening tools. In interviews, providers said they are not ordering cancer-risk genetic testing even when it might be appropriate. Ninety-eight percent agree testing is important to clinical care, but 73% agree that it could negatively affect patients. Ninety percent were willing to offer targeted testing, but only 68% were willing to offer population-based risk assessment. Confidence performing different behaviors necessary in a cancer risk assessment varied, with only 32% confident responding to questions specifically related to genetic testing.
conclusionProviders are willing to offer genetic testing but unlikely to do so because they lack confidence in genetics-specific skill areas. Unsystematic approaches to family history screening and fears about follow-up complexity may exacerbate health disparities. Interventions to increase provider confidence in ascertaining and managing hereditary cancer are needed to achieve widespread adoption of population-based risk assessment and guideline-recommended genetic testing.
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.