ArticleBMC health services research2026
A mixed-methods exploration of stakeholder experiences and perspectives on integrating polygenic breast cancer risk scores into Swedish clinical practice.
Article in BMC health services research, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo explore women's experiences following polygenic risk score (PRS) testing for breast cancer risk and to assess the knowledge, attitudes, practices (KAP), and implementation perspectives of medical professionals and healthcare decision-makers in Sweden.
methodsConvergent mixed-methods study combining quantitative survey data with qualitative thematic analysis of survey open-ended responses and focus group discussion (FGD) notes.
settingSwedish healthcare context.
participants400 women receiving PRS results for a first Participants Feedback Survey; 289 women for the second Participants Feedback Survey, and 6 medical professionals/decision-makers for a KAP survey and FGD. Women completed two sequential online feedback surveys post-PRS result disclosure. Professionals completed a KAP survey and participated in an FGD. Quantitative survey data were analysed using descriptive statistics. Qualitative data from open-ended survey questions and FGD notes were analysed using thematic analysis.
resultsParticipants valued participation in PRS testing and receiving PRS-test results, with 87% finding results interesting and 82% finding them valuable. Although most participants found the explanations understandable (approximately 75% in Survey 1 and 82% in Survey 2), qualitative comments indicated that some had difficulty interpreting probabilistic risk information, including participants who self-identified as highly educated or medically trained. Negative emotional impact was generally minimal (85% felt calm), though some women with high PRS risk experienced anxiety. Major unmet needs included clearer explanations, actionable guidance, and better access to follow-up support from healthcare. Professionals were cautiously positive: in the KAP survey, 5 of 6 were familiar with the concept of PRS, but confidence in the health system's readiness to integrate it was limited. The main barriers raised were the absence of clinical guidelines and the need for evidence of clinical utility.
conclusionsBreast cancer PRS testing holds potential for enhancing risk assessment in Sweden. Key challenges for clinical integration include clinician readiness, the development of clear guidelines, and improved participant comprehension and communication. PRS tests should be accompanied with clinical decision support both for patients as well for medical professionals. Addressing these will require person-centered communication tools, robust evidence of clinical utility, well-defined clinical pathways, investments in provider education, and equitable implementation strategies within the Swedish healthcare system. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.