ArticleJournal of genetic counseling2016
Experiences of Women Who Underwent Predictive BRCA 1/2 Mutation Testing Before the Age of 30.
Article in Journal of genetic counseling, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Family Communication, Risk Perception and Cancer Knowledge of Young Adults from BRCA1/2 Families: a Systematic Review.Journal of genetic counseling · 2017Pooled it
- Psychological Distress, Anxiety, and Depression of Cancer-Affected BRCA1/2 Mutation Carriers: a Systematic Review.Journal of genetic counseling · 2016Pooled it
- Need for specially designed educational support groups: Young women's experiences of being identified with BRCA pathogenic variants.Journal of genetic counseling · 2025Article
- "I don't need any more unknowns hanging over my head": Views of patients with cancer on variants of uncertain significance and low/moderate risk results from genomic sequencing.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2023Article
- Leveraging an Informatics Approach to Identify an Unmet Clinical Need forJCO clinical cancer informatics · 2022Article
- COVID-19 experiences predicting high anxiety and depression among a sample of BRCA1/BRCA2-positive women in the US.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- COVID-19 Experiences Predicting High Anxiety and Depression Among a Sample of BRCA1/BRCA2-positive Women in the US.Research square · 2021Article
- Uncertainty following an inconclusive result from the BRCA1/2 genetic test: A review about psychological outcomes.World journal of psychiatry · 2021Article
- Examining the uptake of predictive BRCA testing in the UK; findings and implications.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2021Article
- Should All Individuals Be Screened for Genetic Predisposition to Cancer?Genetics research · 2021Review
- Using patient perspectives to inform communication training materials for health care professionals discussing BRCA mutation testing.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2020Article
- Online BRCA1/2 screening in the Australian Jewish community: a qualitative study.Journal of community genetics · 2020Article
- What Results Should Be Returned from Opportunistic Screening in Translational Research?Journal of personalized medicine · 2020Article
- Factors Associated With Use of a High-Volume Cancer Center by Black Women With Ovarian Cancer.Journal of oncology practice · 2019Article
- Risk perception and screening behavior of Filipino women at risk for breast cancer: implications for cancer genetic counseling.Journal of community genetics · 2019Article
- Patient experience and utility of genetic information: a cross-sectional study among patients tested for cancer susceptibility and thrombophilia.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2018Article
- Heightened perception of breast cancer risk in young women at risk of familial breast cancer.Familial cancer · 2018Article
- Population screening for BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations: lessons from qualitative analysis of the screening experience.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This qualitative interview study focuses on the experiences of a sample of British female BRCA 1/2 carriers who had predictive testing before the age of 30, which is the minimum age for breast screening in the UK. Following appropriate informed consent procedures participants were recruited through the Cancer Genetics Service for Wales. Semi-structured interviews were conducted face-to-face with seven participants, transcribed in full and analyzed using thematic analysis. The motives for testing and perceived advantages described by participants were similar to those identified in previous studies with older participants, such as increased awareness and knowledge and feeling more in control. However some of the perceived disadvantages were specific to younger women, including feeling pressured to make important life decisions earlier than they would have liked, such as about family planning and risk reducing surgery. Participants also reported feeling abandoned or forgotten because of lack of ongoing clinical contact, or feeling "stuck waiting" for screening to begin. However, none felt that these disadvantages were a reason to regret having testing. Findings in this small study suggest that having BRCA 1/2 predictive testing can have positive outcomes for young women even though they may be unable to access interventions such as breast screening. However it may be helpful to encourage young women during pre-test counseling to explore the decisions and choices they may face. These young women could benefit from ongoing support and follow up and increased interaction with healthcare professionals.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25983051What 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.