Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25820809›Full record

ArticleJournal of behavioral medicine2015

Intuition versus cognition: a qualitative exploration of how women understand and manage their increased breast cancer risk.

Louise Heiniger, Phyllis N Butow, Margaret Charles, kConFab Psychosocial Group on behalf of the kConFab Investigators, Melanie A Price

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of behavioral medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. 'I Don't Like Uncertainty, I Like to Know': How and why uveal melanoma patients consent to life expectancy prognostication.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Reconciling the theory and reality of shared decision-making: A "matching" approach to practitioner leadership.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2019
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. 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

5 authors.

Louise HeinigerCentre for Medical Psychology and Evidence-Based Decision-Making, School of Psychology, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia. Louise.Heiniger@sydney.edu.au.
Phyllis N ButowCentre for Medical Psychology and Evidence-Based Decision-Making, School of Psychology, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Margaret CharlesCentre for Medical Psychology and Evidence-Based Decision-Making, School of Psychology, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
kConFab Psychosocial Group on behalf of the kConFab Investigators
Melanie A PriceCentre for Medical Psychology and Evidence-Based Decision-Making, School of Psychology, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Risk comprehension in individuals at increased familial risk of cancer is suboptimal and little is known about how risk is understood and managed by at-risk individuals who do not undergo genetic testing. We qualitatively studied these issues in 36 unaffected women from high-risk breast cancer families, including both women who had and had not undergone genetic testing. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews and data analysis was guided by Grounded Theory. Risk comprehension and risk management were largely influenced by the individual's experience of coming from a high-risk family, with both tested and untested women relying heavily on their intuition. Although women's cognitive understanding of their risk appeared generally accurate, this objective risk information was considered of secondary value. The findings could be used to guide the development and delivery of information about risk and risk management to genetically tested and untested individuals at increased risk of hereditary cancer.

Indexed as

CognitionComprehensionGenetic Predisposition to DiseaseIntuitionAdultBreast NeoplasmsFemaleGenetic TestingHumansMiddle AgedRiskFamilial riskGenetic testingOncologyRisk comprehensionRisk perception

Identifiers

PMID25820809

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.