ArticleResearch square2026
Precision Medicine in Rural Settings: Clinician Perspectives on Clinician-Ordered Genetic Testing.
Article in Research square, 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPrevious research has identified a limited number of specialty care providers (such as clinicians with specialty training in genetics) in rural areas. We consider here the perceptions of rural clinicians regarding genetic testing, as they may contribute to its incorporation into rural healthcare.
methodsWe conducted semi-structured interviews with rural clinicians in the Mountain West states of Utah, Montana, Nevada, and Wyoming who had discussed reproductive genetic carrier screening or disease risk genetic testing with a patient. Interviews were thematically analyzed using a hybrid deductive-inductive approach informed by the Practical, Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model (PRISM) and the Implementation Outcomes Framework (IOF), with a focus on contextual determinants and acceptability and appropriateness as implementation outcomes.
resultsWe analyzed data from 19 rural clinicians who had discussed disease-risk genetic testing and/or reproductive genetic carrier screening with a patient. Participants generally perceived these discussions as acceptable and appropriate. The clinical actionability of information gleaned from genetic testing particularly influenced its acceptability. Clinicians expressed concern about selecting and interpreting genetic tests. Most clinicians did not describe working in a setting where genetic testing was a routinized part of the patient care workflow.
conclusionsAmong Mountain West rural clinicians who discussed genetic testing with a patient, genetic testing was perceived as acceptable and appropriate, particularly when the results would affect patient management. However, rural clinicians were concerned about their knowledge base in selecting and interpreting genetic tests and relied on referrals to genetics specialists for these tasks. These findings suggest that implementing genetic testing in the rural Mountain West may require a coordinated effort to increase clinicians' knowledge of genetic tests and their interpretation and ensure they have adequate access to support from genetics-trained colleagues.
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.