ArticlePreventing chronic disease2026
Clinician Discussion of Family Cancer Risk and Use of Genetic Testing Among US Adults With a Family History of Cancer.
Article in Preventing chronic disease, 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Family history plays a key role in assessing inherited cancer risk, but genetic testing is still underused at the population level. The role of clinician-patient discussion in this gap is not well characterized. This study aimed to evaluate the association between clinician discussion of family cancer risk and use of genetic testing among US adults with a first-degree family history of cancer. Methods: This cross-sectional study used data from the 2023 National Health Interview Survey. The exposure was self-reported clinician discussion of family cancer risk, and the outcome was self-reported receipt of genetic testing for cancer risk. Survey weights were applied to generate nationally representative estimates. Propensity scores were used to match respondents with and without clinician discussion. Survey-weighted logistic regression models estimated associations. Results: Among 9,476 respondents (representing approximately 72.6 million US adults), 50% reported clinician discussion, and 7.8% reported genetic testing. Testing was more common among those reporting discussion (12.9%) than those who did not (2.7%) (P < .001). In fully adjusted analyses, clinician discussion was associated with higher odds of testing (adjusted odds ratio, 5.35; 95% CI, 4.23-6.76). Older age, female sex, higher education, and personal cancer history were also associated with testing. Conclusion: Clinician discussion of family cancer risk was strongly associated with use of genetic testing; however, overall testing rates were low. Improving routine clinician engagement may increase use of genetic services and support cancer prevention.
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.