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.
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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- "More work means less pay": a qualitative understanding of physicians' patient selection decision-making under DRG reform in Nanjing, China.International journal for equity in health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.