SynthesisFamily medicine and community health2022
General practitioners' (GPs) experience, attitudes and needs on clinical genetic services: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Family medicine and community health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.
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
17 citing papers in PubMed.
- Discomfort in the Unexpected: A Mixed-Methods Study on Australian Clinicians' Experiences of Explaining Prenatal Screening Results.The Australian & New Zealand journal of obstetrics & gynaecology · 2026Article
- Knowledge, attitudes and practices of cancer genetics in family medicine in Japan: a mixed methods study.BMC primary care · 2026Article
- Ethically Integrating Genomics in Primary Care: An Invitation to Share Implementation Best Practices.Mayo Clinic proceedings · 2026Article
- Current landscape of clinical genetics knowledge and attitudes among Non-Geneticist Physicians - the McGill genetics education survey (McGES).Journal of community genetics · 2025Article
- Awareness and knowledge of familial breast and ovarian cancer among German general practice patients.Journal of genetic counseling · 2025Article
- Acceptance and attitudes towards genetic cancer testing among German general practice patients: a cross-sectional survey.Family medicine and community health · 2025Article
- Genetic and Genomic Literacy of Healthcare Providers Treating Anorexia Nervosa in the United States: A Mixed Methods, Cross-Sectional Study.Brain and behavior · 2025Article
- Does Education Design Matter? Evaluating an Evidence-Based Continuing Education Intervention on Genomic Testing for Primary Care; a Pre-Test Post-Test Study.Journal of CME · 2025Article
- Exploring healthcare personnel's knowledge, barriers, and innovative approaches in personalised oncology medicine: a scoping review.Critical public health · 2025Review
- Women's preferences for genetic screening in routine care: A qualitative study.Patient education and counseling · 2025Article
- Utility of eConsult to enhance delivery of cancer genetic services and identify hereditary cancer knowledge gaps in primary care.Genetics in medicine open · 2025Article
- Article
- Consensus Guidance for Genetic Counseling in GBA1 Variants: A Focus on Parkinson's Disease.Movement disorders : official journal of the Movement Disorder Society · 2024Review
- 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
- Application of practice-based learning and improvement in standardized training of general practitioners.BMC medical education · 2024Article
- Genetic literacy among primary care physicians in a resource-constrained setting.BMC medical education · 2024Article
- Utility of pharmacogenetic testing to optimise antidepressant pharmacotherapy in youth: a narrative literature review.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe proliferation and growing demands of genetic testing are anticipated to revolutionise medical practice. As gatekeepers of healthcare systems, general practitioners (GPs) are expected to play a critical role in the provision of clinical genetic services. This paper aims to review existing literature on GPs' experience, attitudes and needs towards clinical genetic services.
designA systematic mixed studies review of papers published between 2010 and 2022. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: The inclusion criterion was peer-reviewed articles in English and related to GPs' experience, views and needs on any genetic testing. INFORMATION SOURCES: The PubMed, PsycINFO, Cochrane, EMBASE databases were searched using Mesh terms, Boolean and wildcards combinations to identify peer-reviewed articles published from 2010 to 2022. Study quality was assessed using Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Only articles that fulfilled the inclusion criteria were selected. A thematic meta-synthesis was conducted on the final sample of selected articles to identify key themes.
resultsA total of 62 articles were included in the review. Uncertainty over GPs' role in providing genetic services were attributed by the lack of confidence and time constraints and rarity of cases may further exacerbate their reluctance to shoulder an expanded role in clinical genetics. Although educational interventions were found to increasing GPs' knowledge and confidence to carry out genetic tasks, varied interest on genetic testing and preference for a shared care model with other genetic health professionals have resulted in minimal translation to clinical adoption.
conclusionThis review highlights the need for deeper exploration of GPs' varied experience and attitudes towards clinical genetic services to better facilitate targeted intervention in the adoption of clinical genetics.
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.