ArticleResearch connections2026
Feasibility and acceptability of an electronic decision aid for genetic testing in ovarian and pancreatic cancer patients.
Article in Research connections, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and aims: Germline genetic testing is recommended for all patients with ovarian or pancreatic cancer, and alternative service delivery models are needed to meet this demand. We evaluated an electronic decision aid (DA) that can be administered during a visit with an oncology provider. The DA centered around the decision to pursue genetic testing and selection of a specific multi-gene panel. Methods: An electronic DA had previously been developed by a multi-disciplinary team. Patients were enrolled at two academic medical centers. We surveyed participants with ovarian or pancreatic cancer who completed the DA about their experience and knowledge gained. Oncology providers were also surveyed. Results: Ninety-two patients were enrolled. The DA took 13.7 min to complete. There was a 20% increase in knowledge scores after using the DA. Ninety-five percent opted to pursue genetic testing; 20% chose the smallest cancer-specific gene panel, 31% chose the mid-size multi-cancer panel, and 49% chose the largest panel that included limited evidence genes. Nearly all participants (93%) indicated the DA helped their decision-making, and 95% would recommend the DA to friends interested in genetic testing. Ninety-one percent of providers felt patients were well-informed about genetic testing options and 93% indicated the DA did not extend appointment times. Conclusions: Use of a DA for genetic testing is feasible and acceptable. Patients and providers expressed high levels of satisfaction. The wide range of multi-gene panels selected highlights the importance of offering choice. Studies to formally compare the performance of the DA with traditional genetic counseling are warranted.
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.