Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17356960›Full record

ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2007

Missed opportunities: family history and behavioral risk factors in breast cancer risk assessment among a multiethnic group of women.

Leah S Karliner, Anna Napoles-Springer, Karla Kerlikowske, Jennifer S Haas, Steven E Gregorich, Celia Patricia Kaplan

2 registry-linked trialsOpen access · bronzeAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 25% of its field
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.

NCT00977847 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2010, after this paper: background citation

Integrating Patient Generated Family Health History From Varied Electronic Health Record Entry Portals

TypeinterventionalSponsorBrigham and Women's HospitalRan2010 to 2012Enrolled5,000ConditionsFamily Characteristics, Health Status, Family ResearchArmsElectronic Health Portals for collecting Family History data
NCT03006913 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2017, after this paper: background citation

Comparison of 3 Modes of Genetic Counseling in High-Risk Public Hospital

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of California, San FranciscoRan2017 to 2019Enrolled1,273ConditionsGenetic CounselingArmsIn-person, By phone, By video
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Precision Health: The Role of the Social and Behavioral Sciences in Advancing the Vision.Annals of behavioral medicine : a publication of the Society of Behavioral Medicine · 2020
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Breast Cancer in Latinas: A Focus on Intrinsic Subtypes Distribution.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2018
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
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

6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Leah S KarlinerDivision of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Medical Effectiveness Research Center for Diverse Populations, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA.
Anna Napoles-Springer
Karla Kerlikowske
Jennifer S Haas
Steven E Gregorich
Celia Patricia Kaplan
University of California, San Francisco · USDepartment of Veterans Affairs · AUHarvard University · USUCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center · US

Funding

San Francisco Mammography Registry-A Research SourceU01CA063740 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI KERLIKOWSKE, KARLA M · 1994 to 2011
$6.2M
NCI NIH HHS U01 CA063740NCI NIH HHS U01CA63740
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundClinician's knowledge of a woman's cancer family history (CFH) and counseling about health-related behaviors (HRB) is necessary for appropriate breast cancer care.

objectiveTo evaluate whether clinicians solicit CFH and counsel women on HRB; to assess relationship of well visits and patient risk perception or worry with clinician's behavior.

designCross-sectional population-based telephone survey.

participantsMultiethnic sample; 1,700 women from San Francisco Mammography Registry with a screening mammogram in 2001-2002. MEASUREMENTS: PREDICTORS: well visit in prior year, self-perception of 10-year breast cancer risk, worry scale. OUTCOMES: Patient report of clinician asking about CFH in prior year, or ever counseling about HRB in relation to breast cancer risk. Multivariate models included age, ethnicity, education, language of interview, insurance/mammography facility, well visit, ever having a breast biopsy/follow-up mammography, Gail-Model risk, Jewish heritage, and body mass index.

results58% reported clinicians asked about CFH; 33% reported clinicians ever discussed HRB. In multivariate analysis, regardless of actual risk, perceived risk, or level of worry, having had a well visit in prior year was associated with increased odds (OR = 2.3; 95% CI 1.6, 3.3) that a clinician asked about CFH. Regardless of actual risk of breast cancer, a higher level of worry (OR = 1.9; 95% CI 1.4, 2.6) was associated with increased odds that a clinician ever discussed HRB.

conclusionsClinicians are missing opportunities to elicit family cancer histories and counsel about health-related behaviors and breast cancer risk. Preventive health visits offer opportunities for clinicians to address family history, risk behaviors, and patients' worries about breast cancer.

Indexed as

EthnicityRisk-TakingAdultAgedBreast NeoplasmsCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMass ScreeningMedical History TakingMiddle AgedRegistriesRisk AssessmentRisk Factors

Identifiers

PMID17356960
PMCPMC1824768
OpenAlexW2100272991

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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 OpenQuestion graph.