ArticleJournal of genetic counseling2025
Provider perceptions and insights on polygenic risk scores for colorectal cancer: A qualitative study.
Article in Journal of genetic counseling, 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.
- Provider perceptions and insights on polygenic risk scores for colorectal cancer: A qualitative study.Journal of genetic counseling · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Polygenic risk scores (PRS), a measure that sums multiple common genetic susceptibility variants into a single burden measure, can help identify individuals at higher risk for colorectal cancer (CRC). Consequently, there is growing interest in its potential use to guide screening practices, despite the current lack of evidence-based guidelines on the clinical utility of PRS models. Therefore, there is a need to understand the potential challenges and factors associated with PRS use in primary care settings. This qualitative study explores the perceptions of healthcare providers with PRS information to guide CRC screening decisions in the primary care setting. Using an exploratory approach, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 10 healthcare providers. The socioecological model guided the development of the interview questions. Transcripts were coded based on emergent themes. A total of seven themes were identified in this study, and each was organized using the socioecological model at the individual, interpersonal, community, and organizational levels. One key finding was the limited knowledge of PRS and the distinction between PRS and genetic testing for high-penetrant germline mutations. Providers shared the need for training, education, and comprehensive clinical guidelines for the use of PRS. This study provides insights to better optimize genetic education, testing, access, and care for improved CRC screening in at-risk individuals.
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.