ArticleJournal of community genetics2026
Development and feasibility testing of a conversational chatbot supporting genetic education and testing for hereditary cancer.
Article in Journal of community genetics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06184867 (Choices About Genetic Testing And Learning Your Risk With Smart Technology), which is not on this 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.
Choices About Genetic Testing And Learning Your Risk With Smart Technology
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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study describes the development and feasibility testing of a digital health guide (DHG) to streamline genetic education, reduce barriers, and promote informed genetic testing (GT) decisions among cancer survivors. This study reports on the DHG's development, usability testing, acceptability, feasibility, and preliminary efficacy in improving genetic counseling (GC) and GT access for cancer survivors. Guided by the Ottawa Decision Support Framework, the DHG prototype was developed following community engagement with cancer patients and at-risk relatives from diverse sociodemographically backgrounds. It was refined through user (content-focused) and usability (functionality-focused) testing. Pilot trial participants provided data through semi-structured interviews and usability assessments. Qualitative data were analyzed using the Framework Method. The preliminary impact of the DHG on GC and GT uptake, and informed decision-making, was assessed in a feasibility and accessibility trial. The Chatbot Usability Questionnaire score for the DHG was 70.3 (IQR = 12.5), indicating good acceptability. The DHG also facilitated GT uptake (73.3%) compared to enhanced usual care (EUC; 7.7%). Pretest GC was requested by 1 of 13 patients in the EUC arm, while no request (0 of 15 patients) was made in the DHG arm. Users' feedback led to clearer language, improved navigation, and stronger messaging regarding data security. DHG participants had lower decisional conflict (33.37 ± 21.09) and decision regret (17.5 ± 16.50) than those in the EUC arm (53.25 ± 22.66 and 37.08 ± 17.38, respectively). The digital intervention is feasible, acceptable, and a promising strategy for expanding GT access and promoting informed decision-making. Further testing in a definitive randomized controlled trial is warranted. Clinical trial registration. This study was preregistered at the NIH clinical trial registry ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06184867 ).
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.