ArticleBMC women's health2026
Bridging the gap between guidelines and practice: genetic counseling uptake and barriers in patients with ovarian malignancies.
Article in BMC women's health, 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
24 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGenetic counseling and germline genetic testing are essential components of ovarian cancer care; however, their implementation in routine clinical practice remains inconsistent. This study aimed to evaluate the utilization of genetic counseling and testing among patients with ovarian cancer and identify barriers to implementation within routine care.
methodsA single-center, retrospective questionnaire-based study was conducted among patients who underwent surgical treatment for ovarian malignancies between January 2021 and June 2025. Patient-reported data on information provision, referral pathways, organizational access, satisfaction, and barriers were linked with clinical and demographic characteristics. Descriptive analyses were performed, reflecting the exploratory nature of the study. A problem frequency (PF) framework, defined as the proportion of responses indicating a problem, was applied to identify and rank patient-reported barriers.
resultsOf 321 identified patients, 61 were deceased prior to study initiation. Among 256 successfully contacted patients, 132 responded (51.6%). Overall, 115/132 (87.1%) reported receiving information regarding genetic counseling, primarily from hospital-based physicians (106/132; 80.3%). Among the 132 questionnaire respondents, 96/132 (72.7%) attended genetic counseling and 93/132 (70.5%) proceeded to genetic testing; pathogenic variants were identified in 26/93 tested patients (28.0%). Genetic counseling among respondents increased from 37.5% in 2021 to 94.7% in 2025. The majority of appointments were self-initiated. The most frequently reported barriers were limited information provision, appointment scheduling difficulties, and travel-related barriers, whereas emotional burden at the time of diagnosis was reported less frequently. Uptake was significantly associated with family history of breast and/or ovarian cancer, higher educational attainment, and parity. Notably, nearly half of the participants who had not attended genetic counseling (17/36;47.2%) reported reconsidering uptake after completing the questionnaire.
conclusionDespite recommendations for universal genetic counseling in ovarian cancer care, gaps in implementation remain evident in routine clinical practice. Organizational and informational barriers represent prominent obstacles to uptake. Our findings highlight the potential value of standardized referral pathways, proactive information provision, and repeated patient engagement to facilitate access to genetic services.
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.