Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17279329›Full record

ArticleJournal of genetic counseling2007

Risk perception, worry and satisfaction related to genetic counseling for hereditary cancer.

Cathrine Bjorvatn, Geir Egil Eide, Berit Rokne Hanestad, Nina Øyen, Odd E Havik, Anniken Carlsson, Gunilla Berglund

Abstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of genetic counseling, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

33 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Age Group Differences in Household Accident Risk Perceptions and Intentions to Reduce Hazards.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Cathrine BjorvatnDepartment of Public Health and Primary Health Care, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.
Geir Egil Eide
Berit Rokne Hanestad
Nina Øyen
Odd E Havik
Anniken Carlsson
Gunilla Berglund

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this multi center study, genetic counseling for hereditary cancer was evaluated by assessing patients' worry, perceived risk of developing cancer and satisfaction with genetic counseling. An overall aim was to identify characteristics of vulnerable patients in order to customize genetic counseling. In addition, agreement between patients' and counselors' scores was measured. A total of 275 Norwegian patients were consecutively recruited, and 213 completed questionnaires before and after genetic counseling. Patients' perceived risk decreased after the genetic counseling session. There was incongruence between risk perception expressed as a percentage and in words. Patients were significantly less worried after counseling. Higher levels of worry were predicted by low instrumental satisfaction with counseling, high degree of perceived risk of developing cancer and younger age. In conclusion, counselors met the patients' psychological needs to a satisfactory degree during counseling. However, patients did not fully understand their risk of developing cancer.

Indexed as

Genetic CounselingPatient SatisfactionAdultBreast NeoplasmsColorectal NeoplasmsFemaleGenetic TestingHumansNorwayOvarian NeoplasmsRiskSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 OpenQuestion graph.