Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39532988›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2025

Using a behaviour-change approach to support uptake of population genomic screening and management options for breast or prostate cancer.

Zoe Fehlberg, Louise Fisher, Cun Liu, Nathasha Kugenthiran, Roger L Milne, Mary-Anne Young, Amanda Willis, Melissa C Southey, Ilias Goranitis, Stephanie Best

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of human genetics : EJHG, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Zoe FehlbergEconomics of Genomics and Precision Medicine Unit, Centre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Louise FisherEconomics of Genomics and Precision Medicine Unit, Centre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Cun LiuEconomics of Genomics and Precision Medicine Unit, Centre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Nathasha KugenthiranGenomics in Society, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Roger L MilneCancer Epidemiology Division, Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-5764-7268
Mary-Anne YoungClinical Translation & Engagement, Garvan Institute of Medical Research, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-2493-6394
Amanda WillisClinical Translation & Engagement, Garvan Institute of Medical Research, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-1529-3833
Melissa C SoutheyCancer Epidemiology Division, Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Ilias GoranitisEconomics of Genomics and Precision Medicine Unit, Centre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-7946-8324
Stephanie BestAustralian Genomics, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. stephanie.best@unimelb.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0002-1107-8976

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As the possibility of implementing population genomic screening programs for the risk of developing hereditary cancers in health systems increases, understanding how to support individuals who wish to have genomic screening is essential. This qualitative study aimed to link public perceived barriers to a) taking up the offer of population genomic screening for breast or prostate cancer risk and b) taking up risk-management options following their result, with possible theory-informed behaviour-change approaches that may support implementation. Ten focus groups were conducted with a total of 25 members of the Australian public to identify and then categorise barriers within the behaviour-change Capability, Opportunity, Motivation - Behaviour (COM-B) model. Ten COM-B categorised barriers were identified as perceived influences on an individual's intentions to take-up the offer, including Capability (e.g., low public awareness), Opportunity (e.g., inconvenient sample collection procedure) and Motivation (e.g., genomic screening not perceived as relevant to an individual). Ten barriers for taking up risk-management options included Motivation (e.g., concerns about adverse health impact) and Opportunity (e.g., social opportunity and cost incurred to the individual). Our findings demonstrate that a nuanced approach is required to support people to take-up the offer of population genomic screening and, where appropriate, to adopt risk-management options. Even amongst participants who were enthusiastic about a population genomic screening program, needs were varied, demanding a range of implementation strategies. Promulgating equitable uptake of genomic screening and management options for breast and prostate cancer risk will require a needs-based approach.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsGenetic TestingProstatic NeoplasmsAdultAgedAustraliaEarly Detection of CancerFemaleFocus GroupsGenomicsHumansMaleMiddle AgedMotivation

Identifiers

PMID39532988
PMCPMC11711511

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.