Trial reportJAMA network open2022
Patient and Clinician Decision Support to Increase Genetic Counseling for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Syndrome in Primary Care: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.
Trial report in JAMA network open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 27 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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.
Decision Support for BRCA Testing in Ethnically Diverse Women
Sequential EHR Based Interventions to Increase Genetic Testing for Breast and Ovarian Cancer Predisposition Across Diverse Patient Populations in Gynecology Practices at Penn Medicine
Who cites it
27 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 34 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Systematic Review of Patient-Reported Measures for Individuals Who Underwent Genetic Testing for Heritable Cancer.The patient · 2026Pooled it
- Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Systematic Review for Survey Instruments to Measure Cultural Identification of Native Hawaiians, Pacific Islanders, and Filipinos.Hawai'i journal of health & social welfare · 2023Pooled it
- 'How Did That Make You Feel?' Latinas' Use of Genetic Counseling and Testing for Hereditary Cancer Risk After Watching a Culturally Targeted Video and Receiving Patient Navigation.Psycho-oncology · 2025Trial
- Strategies to Assess Risk for Hereditary Cancer in Primary Care Clinics: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2025Trial
- Pilot study of a decision aid on BRCA1/2 genetic testing among Orthodox Jewish women.Familial cancer · 2024Trial
- Use of web-based decision support to improve informed choice for chemoprevention: a qualitative analysis of pre-implementation interviews (SWOG S1904).BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2024Trial
- Bridging the gap between guidelines and practice: genetic counseling uptake and barriers in patients with ovarian malignancies.BMC women's health · 2026Article
- Fragmented ownership and multilevel barriers to breast MRI screening among high-risk women: A qualitative study informing development of clinical decision support.Research square · 2026Article
- Trends in awareness and uptake of genetic testing among the United States population, 2011-2022.Journal of community genetics · 2026Article
- Healthcare professional perspectives on hereditary breast cancer risk assessment prior to gender-affirming mastectomy.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2026Article
- Review
- Clinical predictors ofFrontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Ethically Integrating Genomics in Primary Care: An Invitation to Share Implementation Best Practices.Mayo Clinic proceedings · 2026Article
- Article
- The breast cancer genetic testing experience: probing the potential utility of an online decision aid in risk perception and decision making.BMC cancer · 2025Article
- Impact of personalized risk scores on shared decision making in left ventricular assist device implantation: Findings from a qualitative study.Patient education and counseling · 2025Article
- Decision Support for Clinician Referral of Patients With Potential BRCA1/2 Mutations for Genetic Counseling: A Secondary Analysis of a Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2024Article
- Assessing interventions promoting the uptake of cancer-related genomic services within the Latino community: A scoping review using the RE-AIM framework.Cancer medicine · 2024Article
- Risk-reducing decisions regarding germlineJournal of medical genetics · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Importance: To promote the identification of women carrying BRCA1/2 variants, the US Preventive Services Task Force recommends that primary care clinicians screen asymptomatic women for an increased risk of carrying a BRCA1/2 variant risk. Objective: To examine the effects of patient and clinician decision support about BRCA1/2 genetic testing compared with standard education alone. Design, Setting, and Participants: This clustered randomized clinical trial was conducted at an academic medical center including 67 clinicians (unit of randomization) and 187 patients. Patient eligibility criteria included women aged 21 to 75 years with no history of breast or ovarian cancer, no prior genetic counseling or testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome (HBOC), and meeting family history criteria for BRCA1/2 genetic testing. Interventions: RealRisks decision aid for patients and the Breast Cancer Risk Navigation Tool decision support for clinicians. Patients scheduled a visit with their clinician within 6 months of enrollment. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was genetic counseling uptake at 6 months. Secondary outcomes were genetic testing uptake at 6 and 24 months, decision-making measures (perceived breast cancer risk, breast cancer worry, genetic testing knowledge, decision conflict) based upon patient surveys administered at baseline, 1 month, postclinic visit, and 6 months. Results: From December 2018 to February 2020, 187 evaluable patients (101 in the intervention group, 86 in the control group) were enrolled (mean [SD] age: 40.7 [13.2] years; 88 Hispanic patients [46.6%]; 15 non-Hispanic Black patients [8.1%]; 72 non-Hispanic White patients [38.9%]; 35 patients [18.9%] with high school education or less) and 164 (87.8%) completed the trial. There was no significant difference in genetic counseling uptake at 6 months between the intervention group (20 patients [19.8%]) and control group (10 patients [11.6%]; difference, 8.2 percentage points; OR, 1.88 [95% CI, 0.82-4.30]; P = .14). Genetic testing uptake within 6 months was also statistically nonsignificant (13 patients [12.9%] in the intervention group vs 7 patients [8.1%] in the control group; P = .31). At 24 months, genetic testing uptake was 31 patients (30.7%) in intervention vs 18 patients (20.9%) in control (P = .14). Comparing decision-making measures between groups at baseline to 6 months, there were significant decreases in perceived breast cancer risk and in breast cancer worry (standard mean differences = -0.48 and -0.40, respectively). Conclusions and Relevance: This randomized clinical trial did not find a significant increase in genetic counseling uptake among patients who received patient and clinician decision support vs those who received standard education, although more than one-third of the ethnically diverse women enrolled in the intervention underwent genetic counseling. These findings suggest that the main advantage for these high-risk women is the ability to opt for screening and preventive services to decrease their cancer risk. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03470402.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.