ArticleBMC primary care2026
Patient-reported actions following receipt of pathogenic hereditary cancer genetic test results: results from a population-based screening study in primary care.
Article in BMC primary care, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundGenetic testing for hereditary cancer risk can improve health outcomes for individuals and their family members. Although the use of multiplex gene panels for cancer risk is expanding in the primary care setting, little is known about patient actions following such testing. We examine participant-reported actions around clinical follow-up and discuss cascade testing with family members after a pathogenic variant (PV) is identified.
methodsThirty-two semi-structured interviews were conducted with primary care patients who had a PV identified through the EDGE (Early Detection of GEnetic risk) study. Thematic analysis was used to explore participant-reported post-testing actions, followed by subgroup analysis by variant actionability.
resultsPatients reported working closely with providers to decide whether to change their cancer-related care and to consider the clinical implications of their test results. Although patients’ reported promotion of cascade testing did not differ by variant actionability, those with actionable variants spoke more often of family members completing cascade testing after they discussed it. Age, sex, cost, and competing priorities influenced the perceived relevance of genetic test results and the urgency of participant-reported post-testing actions.
conclusionsIn this primary care sample, the use of multiplex gene panel testing for cancer risk motivated clinical follow-up and the promotion of cascade testing.
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.