The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Texas physicians' perceptions of genomic medicine as an innovation
Abstract
Primary care providers (PCPs) are believed to be the professionals who, in the near future, will be responsible for incorporating genomic medicine (GM) into primary care. Given the dearth of empirical data describing PCPs' beliefs about GM and the relationship between beliefs and the incorporation of GM into practice, this study assessed whether (and to what extent) PCPs' perceptions of GM as an innovation influence their likelihood of adopting this innovation into primary care. The study utilized diffusion of innovations theory as a framework. A state‐wide representative sample of PCPs practicing in Texas responded to a mailed survey. The survey measured PCPs' perceptions of five characteristics of GM as an innovation. Findings suggest that among the five characteristics examined GM's relative advantage, compatibility with current practice, its complexity, and observability were the strongest predictors of likelihood to adopt GM tasks into primary care practice.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The majority of professionals have a positive attitude towards precision medicine in general or towards interventions labeled as precision medicine.
“Various studies reveal that the majority of professionals have a positive attitude towards PM in general or towards interventions, which are mentioned under the label of PM [27, 34, 43, 45, 47, 50, 79–83].”
From Patients’ and professionals’ views related to ethical issues in precision medicine: a mixed research synthesis (2021) · cites this paper as [50]
Citations
Cites
A vision for the future of genomics research
Collins, F. S., Green, E. D., Guttmacher, A. E., Guyer, M. S., & on behalf of the US National Human Genome Research Institute (2003) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature01626 · Cited by 1,752
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 46
- 10.1056/NEJMra012240 · DOI
- 10.1016/S0188-4409(02)00393-4 · DOI
- 10.1126/science.1089864 · DOI
- 10.1126/science.1091468 · DOI
- 10.1126/science.302.5645.587 · DOI
- 10.1097/00125817-200111000-00005 · DOI
- 10.1001/jama.285.5.540 · DOI
- 10.1016/S1083-3188(02)00141-9 · DOI
- 10.1001/jama.286.13.1639 · DOI
- 10.1136/bmj.322.7293.1027 · DOI
- 10.1093/eurpub/12.1.51 · DOI
- 10.1097/00125817-200203000-00004 · DOI
- 10.1023/A:1018765215470 · DOI
- 10.1136/bmj.319.7222.1410 · DOI
- Dumont‐Driscoll M, 2002, Genetics and the general pediatrician. Where do we belong in the exploding field of medicine?, Curr Probl Pediatr, 32, 1
- 10.1002/1096-8628(20001023)94:5<409::AID-AJMG13>3.0.CO;2-U · DOI
- 10.1006/pmed.2002.1022 · DOI
- 10.1097/01.GIM.0000055201.16487.61 · DOI
- 10.1093/fampra/16.5.468 · DOI
- 10.1097/00125817-199811000-00005 · DOI
- 10.1097/00001888-200008000-00021 · DOI
- 10.1023/A:1008319114278 · DOI
- 10.1046/j.1360-0443.2001.96116512.x · DOI
- 10.1080/108107398127337 · DOI
- Ash JS, 2001, A diffusion of innovations model of physician order entry, Proc AMIA Symp, 22
- 10.1111/j.1365-2648.1996.tb00042.x · DOI
- 10.1097/01.GIM.0000056829.76915.2A · DOI
- Rogers EM, 2003, Diffusion of innovations
- Bandura A, 1986, Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
- Dillman DA, 2002, Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method
- 10.1016/S0749-3797(00)00258-0 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1177/01632780122034777 · DOI
- Cummings SM, 2001, Reported response rates to mailed physician questionnaires, Health Serv Res, 35, 1347
- 10.1097/00005650-200207000-00006 · DOI
- DeVellis RF, 1991, Scale development: theory and applications
- 10.1097/00125817-200005000-00004 · DOI
- 10.1093/fampra/16.4.420 · DOI
- 10.1097/01.GIM.0000076977.90682.A5 · DOI
- 10.1016/S0749-3797(02)00585-8 · DOI
- 10.1097/01.GIM.0000087501.88142.58 · DOI
- 10.1097/01.GIM.0000055197.23822.5E · DOI
- 10.1146/annurev.genet.32.1.547 · DOI
- 10.1093/fampra/18.2.131 · DOI
- Mouchawar J, 2001, Colorado family physicians' knowledge of hereditary breast cancer and related practice, J Cancer Educ, 16, 33
- 10.1046/j.1365-2796.2000.00753.x · DOI
- Friedman LC, 1997, Cancer genetics – Survey of primary care physicians' attitudes and practices, J Cancer Educ, 12, 199
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Erdmann, A., Rehmann-Sutter, C., & Bozzaro, C. (2021) · BMC Medical Ethics · doi:10.1186/s12910-021-00682-8 · Cited by 86
Arar, N., Seo, J., Abboud, H. E., Parchman, M., & Noel, P. (2010) · Personalized Medicine · doi:10.2217/pme.10.47 · Cited by 11
Metadata
- Authors
- Suther, S., & Goodson, P.
- Affiliations
- Texas A&M University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Goodson, P
- ORCID
- Goodson, P
- Venue
- Clinical Genetics
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2004-04-20
- Volume
- 65
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 368-377
- ISSN
- 0009-9163 (ISSN-L)
- 1399-0004
- OpenAlex
- W2115028155
- Cited by
- 26
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 2.62
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Clinical Genetics (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Texas A and M University
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
- Keywords
- genomic medicine, primary care physicians, physician perceptions, technology adoption, diffusion of innovations, relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, observability
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Aged, Attitude of Health Personnel, Diffusion of Innovation, Female, Genetics, Medical, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Physicians, Primary Health Care, Texas
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review