ArticleEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2025
Evaluating an approach for communicating integrated risk scores for melanoma.
Article in European journal of human genetics : EJHG, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
Integrated risk scores (polygenic and non-genetic risk factors) can facilitate risk-stratification, to inform targeted melanoma screening. This mixed-methods pilot study assessed satisfaction, attitudes, and psychosocial impact of a protocol for communicating integrated risk for melanoma using questionnaires (baseline and 1-month post-results) and semi-structured interviews. Affected and unaffected adults enroled in ongoing melanoma studies were recruited to receive their integrated risk booklets and attend a genetic counselling appointment. 35/73 consented to participate; 31 and 33 completed baseline and follow-up questionnaires, respectively. Participants rated the information as useful, felt it motivated favourable health behaviours and were satisfied with the quality and content of the booklet. All participants felt highly empowered managing melanoma risk at baseline and follow-up. Most participants were unsure or felt little to no control over preventing future melanomas, which did not change at follow-up (Chi-square p = 0.73). Genetic-specific distress, and uncertainty was low for all participants post-results. Qualitative interviews supported quantitative findings and highlighted importance of access to a clinician for results interpretation and risk-management. In this high-risk cohort, the communication model was acceptable, and did not result in negative psychosocial sequelae. Findings from this study highlight key considerations for effective communication and delivery of integrated risk which can be used to inform future research in more diverse cohorts for melanoma and other common conditions.
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.