ArticlePsychology & health2011
Identification of cognitive profiles among women considering BRCA1/2 testing through the utilisation of cluster analytic techniques.
Article in Psychology & health, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Perceived risk of cardiovascular diseases and its determinants in Hookah users in Southwest of Iran.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Factors associated with psychological distress during genetic counseling in high-risk women with breast cancer in Turkey.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024Article
- All things considered, my risk for diabetes is medium: A risk personalization process of familial risk for type 2 diabetes.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2020Article
- Emotional impact on the results of BRCA1 and BRCA2 genetic test: an observational retrospective study.Hereditary cancer in clinical practice · 2017Article
- Factors predicting adherence to risk management behaviors of women at increased risk for developing lymphedema.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Based on the cognitive-social health information processing model, we identified cognitive profiles of women at risk for breast and ovarian cancer. Prior to genetic counselling, participants (N = 171) completed a study questionnaire concerning their cognitive and affective responses to being at genetic risk. Using cluster analysis, four cognitive profiles were generated: (a) high perceived risk/low coping; (b) low value of screening/high expectancy of cancer; (c) moderate perceived risk/moderate efficacy of prevention/low informativeness of test result; and (d) high efficacy of prevention/high coping. The majority of women in Clusters One, Two and Three had no personal history of cancer, whereas Cluster Four consisted almost entirely of women affected with cancer. Women in Cluster One had the highest number of affected relatives and experienced higher levels of distress than women in the other three clusters. These results highlight the need to consider the psychological profile of women undergoing genetic testing when designing counselling interventions and messages.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.