Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24946155›Full record

ArticleGenetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics2015

Characteristics associated with genetic counseling referral and BRCA1/2 testing among women in a large integrated health system.

Cecelia A Bellcross, Lucy A Peipins, Frances A McCarty, Juan L Rodriguez, Nikki A Hawkins, Sharon Hensley Alford, Steven Leadbetter

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed
–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

27 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Racial/Ethnic Disparities in BRCA Counseling and Testing: a Narrative Review.Journal of racial and ethnic health disparities · 2019
    Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

7 authors.

Cecelia A BellcrossDepartment of Human Genetics, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Lucy A PeipinsEpidemiology and Applied Research Branch, Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Frances A McCartyNational Center for Health Statistics, Office of Public Health Science Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Hyattsville, Maryland, USA.
Juan L RodriguezEpidemiology and Applied Research Branch, Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Nikki A HawkinsEpidemiology and Applied Research Branch, Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Sharon Hensley AlfordJosephine Ford Cancer Center, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, Michigan, USA.
Steven LeadbetterEpidemiology and Applied Research Branch, Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.

Funding

Intramural CDC HHS CC999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEvidence shows underutilization of cancer genetics services. To explore the reasons behind this underutilization, this study evaluated characteristics of women who were referred for genetic counseling and/or had undergone BRCA1/2 testing.

methodsAn ovarian cancer risk perception study stratified 16,720 eligible women from the Henry Ford Health System into average-, elevated-, and high-risk groups based on family history. We randomly selected 3,307 subjects and interviewed 2,524 of them (76.3% response rate).

resultsAmong the average-, elevated-, and high-risk groups, 2.3, 10.1, and 20.2%, respectively, reported genetic counseling referrals, and 0.8, 3.3, and 9.5%, respectively, reported having undergone BRCA testing. Personal breast cancer history, high risk, and perceived ovarian cancer risk were associated with both referral and testing. Discussion of family history with a doctor predicted counseling referral, whereas belief that family history influenced risk was the strongest BRCA testing predictor. Women perceiving their cancer risk as much higher than other women their age were twice as likely (95% confidence interval: 2.0-9.6) to report genetic counseling referral.

conclusionIn a health system with ready access to cancer genetic counseling and BRCA testing, women who were at high risk underutilized these services. There were strong associations between perceived ovarian cancer risk and genetic counseling referral, and between a belief that family history influenced risk and BRCA testing.

Indexed as

Genes, BRCA1Genes, BRCA2Genetic CounselingGenetic TestingReferral and ConsultationAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansMiddle AgedMutationOdds RatioOvarian NeoplasmsPublic Health SurveillanceRisk Assessment

Identifiers

PMID24946155
PMCPMC4522900

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.