ArticleFrontiers in health services2026
Implementing polygenic risk-based breast cancer screening across European health systems: insights from the BRIGHT project.
Article in Frontiers in health services, 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Polygenic risk scores (PRS) offer a novel means of stratifying breast cancer risk, with the potential to personalize screening protocols and measures, and thus improve early detection. However, their implementation in real-world settings remains poorly understood. This study, as part of the BRIGHT project, investigates how PRS-based breast cancer screening is being piloted, adapted, and resisted across five European countries, Estonia, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, and France, drawing on a combination of implementation science and business model theory. Methods: We employed a multiple-case study approach, conducting 94 semi-structured interviews with stakeholders across healthcare, policy, industry, and civil society. Analysis was guided by the Value-Information-Process (VIP) framework and complemented by selected constructs from the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Data were coded thematically and triangulated with national policy documents, pilot evaluations, and stakeholder workshops. Results: Implementation trajectories varied significantly across contexts. Estonia demonstrated advanced policy-driven integration enabled by digital infrastructure and centralized governance. Sweden and Spain followed pilot-to-policy models, with strong regional autonomy but slower national uptake. Portugal exhibited market-led adoption driven by private sector innovation, while France pursued a trial-first logic centered on MyPeBS. Common barriers included limited clinical guidelines, low genetic literacy among frontline providers, fragmented IT systems, and slow and unclear Health Technology Assessment (HTA) cycles. Key facilitators included strong institutional alignment, biobank-linked infrastructures, and public trust in preventive care. Discussion: Successful PRS implementation requires more than scientific validation; it depends on systemic readiness across value narratives, information systems, and governance processes. PRS-based screening thus serves as a test case for the broader challenge of integrating personalized genomics into public health. Findings offer strategic guidance for policymakers, clinicians, and researchers designing future-ready prevention pathways.
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.