ArticlePatient education and counseling2026
Adapting mainstreaming genetic education and clinical communication materials for cancer patients of varying backgrounds.
Article in Patient education and counseling, 2026. 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.
- Precision Medicine in Rural Settings: Clinician Perspectives on Clinician-Ordered Genetic Testing.Research square · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesMainstreaming genetic testing models that allow non-genetics healthcare professionals to order testing and then return results to patients with the aid of genetic counselors have shown promising outcomes. However, prior studies have not addressed the informational and communication needs of minority and medically underserved patients, who stand to benefit from greater genetic testing access. In the initial phase of a trial to develop, test, and evaluate a linguistically and culturally appropriate mainstreaming model for hereditary cancer multigene panel testing among cancer patients, we used formative research methods including expert review, revision, and transcreation to adapt educational materials (pre-test brochure and video) and clinical communication materials (post-test clinic visit summary and family letter).
methodsWe conducted cognitive interviews with participants (N = 61) recruited from two US community hospitals to evaluate the cultural and linguistic appropriateness of these adapted materials and identify areas for further refinement. Participants included a diverse sample of English- (59 %), Haitian Creole- (20 %), and Spanish- (21 %) speaking patients with varying educational levels and cancer diagnoses. Interviews, guided by the Learner Verification and Revision framework, provided insight to enhance materials based on attraction, comprehension, cultural acceptability, and self-efficacy.
resultsAlthough most participants found the materials useful, informative, and relevant, 41.7 % of participants thought the materials required a lot of mental effort, particularly among Haitian Creole-speaking participants. Critical areas for refinement included a more thorough explanation of gene nomenclature, testing procedures, and types of possible test results. Through integrating expert and participant feedback, the readability of all materials improved (e.g., English-language materials improved from grade 11.4 to 7.6).
conclusionsCognitive interviews identified important comprehension gaps that were addressable prior to integrating these materials into a larger trial of the mainstreaming genetic testing model. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Patient-centered material design is critical to improving the reach of genetic services to diverse audiences.
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.