Developing and Assessing a Scalable Digital Health Tool for Pretest Genetic Education in Patients With Early-Onset Colorectal Cancer: Mixed Methods Design
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: National guidelines recommend germline genetic testing (GT) for all patients with early-onset colorectal cancer. With recent advances in targeted therapies and GT, these guidelines are expected to expand to include broader groups of patients with colorectal cancer. However, there is a shortage of genetic professionals to provide the necessary education and support for informed consent. As such, there is a pressing need to identify alternative approaches to facilitate and expedite access to GT. OBJECTIVE: This study describes the development of a pretest education intervention, Nest-CRC, to facilitate the uptake of germline GT among patients with early-onset colorectal cancer. Patients with early-onset colorectal cancer and health care providers reviewed Nest-CRC, and their reactions and recommendations were captured using a nested mixed methods approach. METHODS: Using the learner verification approach, we conducted 2 sequential phases of surveys and interviews with English- and Spanish-speaking patients with early-onset colorectal cancer and health care providers. The surveys assessed participants' experiences with genetic services and provided immediate feedback on the Nest-CRC genetic education modules. Semistructured interviews evaluated participants' perceptions of self-efficacy, attraction, comprehension, cultural acceptability, and usability of Nest-CRC. Survey data were analyzed using descriptive statistics (mean, median, and proportions), while interview data were analyzed through line-by-line coding of the transcribed interviews. After each phase, Nest-CRC was refined based on participants' recommendations. RESULTS: A total of 52 participants, including 39 patients with early-onset colorectal cancer and 13 providers, participated in the study. Of these, 19 patients and 6 providers participated in phase 1 (N=25), and 20 patients and 7 providers participated in phase 2 (N=27). Most participants (phase 1: 23/25, 92%, to 25/25, 100%; phase 2: 24/27, 89%, to 27/27, 100%) agreed that each of the 5 education modules was easy to understand and helpful; 13 patients reported no history of GT, with 11 (85%) expressing interest in GT and 2 (15%) remaining unsure after completing Nest-CRC. Participants reported that Nest-CRC provided sufficient information to help them decide about GT. The tool was deemed acceptable by individuals from diverse backgrounds, and participants found it visually attractive, easy to comprehend, and user-friendly. CONCLUSIONS: The findings revealed that Nest-CRC is a promising strategy for facilitating pretest education and promoting GT. Nest-CRC has been refined based on participant recommendations and will be re-evaluated.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".