Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40466055›Full record

ArticleJMIR cancer2025

The Role of Online Support, Caregiving, and Gender in Preventative Cancer Genetic Testing Participation: Cross-Sectional Study From a National Study.

Lavlin Agrawal, Richelle Oakley DaSouza, Pavankumar Mulgund, Pankaj Chaudhary

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR cancer, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

4 authors.

Lavlin Agrawal *Department of Business Information Systems and Analytics, Willie A. Deese College of Business and Economics, North Carolina A&T State University, 1601 E. Market Street, 337 Merrick Hall, Greensboro, NC, 27411, United States, 1 7166508654.ORCID 0000-0001-8877-2336
Richelle Oakley DaSouza *Department of Business Information Systems and Analytics, Willie A. Deese College of Business and Economics, North Carolina A&T State University, 1601 E. Market Street, 337 Merrick Hall, Greensboro, NC, 27411, United States, 1 7166508654.ORCID 0000-0003-4294-6286
Pavankumar Mulgund *Department of Management Information Systems, Fogelman College of Business & Economics, University of Memphis, Memphis, TN, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-8434-5070
Pankaj Chaudhary *Department of Business Information Systems and Analytics, Willie A. Deese College of Business and Economics, North Carolina A&T State University, 1601 E. Market Street, 337 Merrick Hall, Greensboro, NC, 27411, United States, 1 7166508654.ORCID 0000-0003-0858-7718

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Despite its potential to predict and detect early cancer risks, genetic testing remains underused by the public. This study, guided by the health belief model (HBM), examined key factors influencing an individual's willingness to undergo genetic testing for cancer, with a particular focus on gender, caregiver status, and participation in online social support groups. Objective: This study aimed to explore the factors that can influence the individual's decision to undergo preventative genetic testing for cancer so that more informed action can be taken to encourage the individuals to engage in preventative health behavior. Methods: This study uses data collected from the 2020 Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS 5 Cycle 4), which included 2947 respondents representing 199,510,996 US adults aged 18 years and older. Multivariable logistic regression and survey-weighted generalized linear models were applied to examine the relationship between cancer genetic testing and caregiver status, participation in online support groups, gender, and constructs associated with the HBM, while controlling for sociodemographic and health-related characteristics. Results: Our findings show that women are more likely to undergo cancer genetic testing, with gender moderating the influence of perceived susceptibility (β=2.54, P=.03) and severity (β=0.94, P<.050) on testing decisions. In line with the HBM, perceived benefits (β=0.19, P=.03) and cues to action (β=2.86, P<.001) increase the likelihood of testing. Results also show that caregivers of patients with cancer (β=1.25, P=.04) and those actively participating in online health support groups (β=0.47, P=.04) are also more likely to engage in cancer genetic testing. Conclusions: Cancer remains a significant health challenge in the United States, with 1.8 million new cases and 606,520 deaths annually. Early detection is vital for treatment success. This study investigates factors influencing the decision to undergo genetic testing for cancer. The examination of caregiver status and online support groups as influencing factors, along with the HBM, provided a significant theoretical contribution to the health care research domain. Results indicated that caregivers and men should be directly targeted with messaging on genetic cancer screening as a proactive health behavior. Additionally, online support groups can promote early detection and encourage participation in genetic testing. Future research should further explore implementing proactive outreach strategies to encourage wider adoption of genetic testing for cancer.

Indexed as

CaregiversGenetic TestingNeoplasmsSelf-Help GroupsSocial SupportAdolescentAdultAgedCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansInternetMaleMiddle AgedSex FactorsUnited Statescancercaregiver statusgender differencesgenetic testinghealth belief modelonline social support

Identifiers

PMID40466055
PMCPMC12157966

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.