ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2026
GP perspectives on genomics in primary care: a qualitative study on using polygenic risk scores to evaluate cancer risk.
Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Preparing healthcare providers to use polygenic risk scores: a qualitative study of learning needs and educational preferences.BMJ open · 2026Article
- Healthcare professionals' experiences returning monogenic, polygenic, and integrated risk results in the eMERGE study.HGG advances · 2026Article
- Predictive Biomarkers for Asymptomatic Adults: Opportunities, Risks, and Guidance for General Practice.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA polygenic risk score (PRS) enables personalisation of cancer risk and supporting risk stratification for melanoma, colorectal, breast, and prostate cancers. Including a PRS in a cancer risk assessment can facilitate risk-appropriate cancer screening by incorporating an individual's age, sex, family history, and genomic test results. GPs are the likely healthcare professionals to order PRS tests and deliver results to patients within existing preventative health models.
aimTo elucidate GPs' perspectives on the use of PRSs to tailor cancer screening in the Australian primary care context. DESIGN &
settingA qualitative study undertaken in Victoria, Australia with GPs involved in a series of studies and clinical trials evaluating PRS.
methodThirty GPs were interviewed; they were either PRS naive or had experience of using PRSs in a research context. Participants had a broad spectrum of clinical experience and knowledge of genomics, reflecting the spectrum of experience and knowledge of GPs in Victoria, Australia. Inductive and deductive thematic analysis was conducted and aligned to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.
resultsCommon themes identified were: general practice is the appropriate setting for PRS-based approaches, personalised approaches to cancer risk can prompt discussions about positive lifestyle changes, and tailored risk reports are useful tools for the communication of complex health information. Barriers identified by GPs included: time constraints on the delivery of preventative health care, education requirements to upskill GPs in genomics, possible psychosocial harms to patients identified as being at increased risk, life-insurance implications, and added pressure on an already struggling health system.
conclusionThese findings provide insight into the requirements for the implementation of PRSs in primary care, from the perspective of GPs.
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.