ArticleFuture science OA2024
DNA sequencing in oncology: a focus group study on a duty to recontact.
Article in Future science OA, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionParticularly in genetics, former results can gain new meaning in the course of time. This raises questions about when professionals should recontact patients with new information. The aim of this focus group study is to clarify how different stakeholders in oncology think about the extent and limits of a duty to recontact. MATERIALS AND
methodsOne focus group with oncology patients (n = 12) and two groups with healthcare professionals (total n = 13) were conducted. In general, there was support for recontacting patients. The scope and extent of this duty was, however, perceived differently. Differences and similarities on the following six contextual factors are discussed: information features, costs and efforts, personal preferences, who is contacted, clinic or research setting, and time. DISCUSSION: Oncology patients were clear in their wish to receive updates while the professionals were more hesitant to consider recontact as a standard of care. This is not surprising as recontacting patients with new information would mean a shift from a
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.