ArticleEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2015
Accuracy of recall of information about a cancer-predisposing BRCA1/2 gene mutation among patients and relatives.
Article in European journal of human genetics : EJHG, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.
- Family Communication, Risk Perception and Cancer Knowledge of Young Adults from BRCA1/2 Families: a Systematic Review.Journal of genetic counseling · 2017Pooled it
- Direct letters to relatives at risk of hereditary cancer-a randomised trial on healthcare-assisted versus family-mediated risk disclosure.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2025Trial
- Patients' perceptions and practices of informing relatives: a qualitative study within a randomised trial on healthcare-assisted risk disclosure.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2024Trial
- Factors Associated With Inaccurate Recall of Inherited Cancer Genetic Test Results Among Individuals With Germline Pathogenic Variants.Cancer medicine · 2026Article
- Clinician Recommendation for Hereditary Genetic Testing in Participants at Increased Risk for Hereditary Cancer.Cancers · 2025Article
- The breast cancer genetic testing experience: probing the potential utility of an online decision aid in risk perception and decision making.BMC cancer · 2025Article
- Experiences of Family Communication and Cascade Genetic Testing for Hereditary Cancer in Medically Underserved Populations-A Qualitative Study.Cancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.) · 2024Article
- Applying the framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions to increase family communication about hereditary cancer.PEC innovation · 2023Article
- Characteristics and experiences of patients from a community-based and consumer-directed hereditary cancer population screening initiative.HGG advances · 2022Article
- "Left in limbo": Exploring how patients with colorectal cancer interpret and respond to a suspected Lynch syndrome diagnosis.Hereditary cancer in clinical practice · 2021Article
- A scoping review of social and behavioral science research to translate genomic discoveries into population health impact.Translational behavioral medicine · 2021Article
- Healthcare professionals' responsibility for informing relatives at risk of hereditary disease.Journal of medical ethics · 2020Article
- Low rates of cascade genetic testing among families with hereditary gynecologic cancer: An opportunity to improve cancer prevention.Gynecologic oncology · 2020Article
- Public support for healthcare-mediated disclosure of hereditary cancer risk information: Results from a population-based survey in Sweden.Hereditary cancer in clinical practice · 2020Article
- Communication about genetic testing with breast and ovarian cancer patients: a scoping review.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2019Article
- A Qualitative Study to Explore the Views and Attitudes towards Prenatal Testing in Adults Who Have Muenke Syndrome and their Partners.Journal of genetic counseling · 2017Article
- The Long and Short of Genetic Counseling Summary Letters: A Case-control Study.Journal of genetic counseling · 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
4 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
This observational study aimed to (i) compare the accuracy of information recalled by patients and relatives following genetic counselling about a newly identified BRCA1/2 mutation, (ii) identify differences in accuracy of information about genetics and hereditary cancer and (iii) investigate whether accuracy among relatives improved when information was provided directly by genetics health professionals. Semistructured interviews following results from consultations with 10 breast/ovarian cancer patients and 22 relatives were audio-recorded and transcribed. Information provided by the genetics health professional was tracked through the families and coded for accuracy. Accuracy was analysed using the Wilcoxon Signed-Ranks test. Sources of information were tested using Spearman's rank-order correlation coefficient. Fifty-three percent of the information recalled by patients was accurate. Accuracy of recall among relatives was significantly lower than that among patients (P=0.017). Both groups recalled a lower proportion of information about hereditary cancer than about genetics (P=0.005). Relatives who learnt the information from the patient alone recalled significantly less accurate information than those informed directly by genetics health professionals (P=0.001). Following genetic counselling about a BRCA1/2 mutation, accuracy of recall was low among patients and relatives, particularly about hereditary cancer. Multiple sources of information, including direct contact with genetics health professionals, may improve the accuracy of information among relatives.
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.