Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20852947›Full record

ReviewFamilial cancer2010

Communicating genetic risk information within families: a review.

Mel Wiseman, Caroline Dancyger, Susan Michie

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Familial cancer, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 71 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
71citing papers in PubMed, 6 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

71 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. A systematic literature review of disclosure practices and reported outcomes for medically actionable genomic secondary findings.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2021
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Guideline
  7. Trial
  8. Testing a Population-Based Outreach Intervention for Ovarian Cancer Survivors to Encourage their Close Relatives to Consider Genetic Counseling.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2024
    Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Preparing for the unexpected: Recommendations for returning secondary findings in late-stage cancer care.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2024
    Article

11 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

3 authors.

Mel WisemanCORE, Research Department of Clinical, Educational & Health Psychology, University College London, 19 Torrington Place, London WC1E 7HB, UK. melwiseman@nhs.net
Caroline Dancyger
Susan Michie

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This review of family communication of genetic risk information addresses questions of what the functions and influences on communication are; what, who and how family members are told about genetic risk information; what the impact for counsellee, relative and relationships are; whether there are differences by gender and condition; and what theories and methodologies are used. A systematic search strategy identified peer-reviewed journal articles published 1985-2009 using a mixture of methodologies. A Narrative Synthesis was used to extract and summarise data relevant to the research questions. This review identified 33 articles which found a consistent pattern of findings that communication about genetic risk within families is influenced by individual beliefs about the desirability of communicating genetic risk and by closeness of relationships within the family. None of the studies directly investigated the impact of communication on counsellees or their families, differences according to gender of counsellee or by condition nor alternative methods of communication with relatives. The findings mainly apply to late onset conditions such as Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer. The most frequently used theory was Family Systems Theory and methods were generally qualitative. This review points to multifactorial influences on who is communicated with in families and what they are told about genetic risk information. Further research is required to investigate the impact of genetic risk information on family systems and differences between genders and conditions.

Indexed as

CommunicationGenetic Predisposition to DiseaseGenetic TestingTruth DisclosureFamilyHumansNeoplasmsReview Literature as TopicRisk Assessment

Identifiers

PMID20852947

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.