SynthesisEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2025
A systematic review of consumers' knowledge, attitudes and experiences of primary health professionals' role in genomic medicine.
Synthesis 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.
- From population science to the clinic? Limits of epigenetic clocks as personal biomarkers.Epigenomics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The integration of genetic testing into primary care is influencing healthcare practices, yet little is known about consumers' knowledge, attitudes, and experiences with genetic testing services or the practitioners who provide them. This systematic review synthesizes peer-reviewed studies on consumers' perspectives regarding the role of primary health professionals in delivering genomic medicine in primary care settings. Six databases (PubMed, Scopus, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and PsycINFO) were systematically searched. Inclusion criteria focused on studies that addressed consumers' knowledge, attitudes, and experiences related to Primary Care Providers' (PCP) roles in genomic medicine. Data relevant to the review objective, including key article characteristics, barriers and facilitators of implementation, and recommendations for advancement or optimisation, were extracted and analysed using thematic analysis. We reviewed 19 studies meeting the inclusion criteria involving 3557 participants. Thematic analysis identified two overarching themes: consumer views on genomic testing irrespective of setting, comprising three sub-themes, and consumer views on genomic testing in the primary care setting, comprising four sub-themes. Consumers' trust in PCPs as familiar and approachable professionals was a major concern. Consumers often reported positive experiences when PCPs were well-informed and communicative, but negative experiences were common when there was a perceived lack of knowledge or confidence from the PCP. As reported in other healthcare settings, concerns about privacy, data security, and the cost of genomic testing were also prominent. Integrating genomic medicine into primary care requires trust-building between PCPs and consumers, enhancing PCP education and resources, addressing privacy and cost concerns and strengthening collaboration with genetic specialists to improve consumer experiences.
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.