ArticleGenetics in medicine open2026
Assessment of local provider engagement of an in-home collaborative model for remote genetic services.
Article in Genetics in medicine open, 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
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: Clinical genetic testing demand has increased in the era of precision medicine. However, the availability of cancer genetic services remains limited in the United States, prompting a rise in telehealth delivery. Through our Telegenetics program, we seek to promote genetic service delivery across the United States, and here, we assess engagement through registrations with local providers using a service delivery model. Methods: This report describes the Penn Telegenetics Program experience across 4 research and clinical activities using an in-home collaborative local provider model. We report the clinical procedures and our initial experience implementing this model across these 4 research and clinical activities in the Penn Telegenetics Program. We present descriptive findings of the registrations and, in cases of refusals, the rationale provided. Results: From 2018 to 2025, 473 providers (89.4%) successfully registered. Providers were predominantly MD/DO licensed (85.0%). Family medicine was the most frequent specialty (54.3%), followed by internal medicine (20.9%) and clinical oncology (11.8%). Most providers were in suburban locations by zip codes (56.2%); 20.1% were in rural zip codes. Only 56 providers declined collaboration (10.6%); the most common reasons reported were preferring local genetic services (22.5%) and not being comfortable as the ordering provider (22.5%). Conclusion: Our data demonstrate that most local providers are willing to collaborate with a centralized telegenetics program. Still, subsequent engagement from local providers in follow-up questions or other referrals remains a missed opportunity to improve telegenetics access. Refining procedures to increase collaborative care and engagement may provide opportunities to increase access to cancer genetic testing.
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.