ArticleJournal of medical genetics2025
Uptake, utility and resource requirements of a genetic counselling telephone helpline within the BRCA-DIRECT digital pathway for mainstreamed BRCA testing in patients with breast cancer.
Article in Journal of medical genetics, 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
23 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe trialled the first digital pathway (BRCA-DIRECT) aiming to improve capacity for mainstreamed BRCA testing within UK breast oncology services. Patients received standardised digital pretest information, with saliva sampling and consent to testing completed at home. For individualised support, we offered access to a clinical genetics professional via a telephone helpline (TH).
methodsTo evaluate the utilisation, uptake and resource requirements for provision of the TH, we analysed data from structured call logs recorded in the BRCA-DIRECT Study. Mixed-methods analysis included combining quantitative data from call logs and patient demographics with thematic analysis of free-text notes establishing reasons for calls. Additional data were analysed from structured telephone interviews.
resultsCalls were received from 201/1140 (17.6%) patients. We identified that 84.6% of calls (274 calls, 1097 min) pertained to 'administrative' support needs only. The remaining 15.4% required a clinical genetics professional (50 calls, 344 min). Of the clinical calls received: 26.0% were placed prior to test consent, 36.0% while awaiting results and 38.0% post results, with median (interquartile) call lengths of 8 (4-10) min; 5.5 (4-10) min; and 5 (3-7) min, respectively. Across all 1140 patients, a mean of 0.3 min of clinical time was required per patient.
conclusionsOur findings demonstrate that the 'BRCA-DIRECT' model of standardised information provision served most patients, with a minority using the helpline for supplementary clinical information or support. The modest per-patient requirement for clinical time supports the scalability of this model for expanding mainstream genetic testing within UK oncology services.
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.