ArticleJournal of community genetics2016
Discussion of photoprotection, screening, and risk behaviors with children and grandchildren after melanoma genetic testing.
Article in Journal of community genetics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development of an Educational Program Integrating Concepts of Genetic Risk and Preventive Strategies for Children with a Family History of Melanoma.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2018Article
- Genetic Test Reporting and Counseling for Melanoma Risk in Minors May Improve Sun Protection Without Inducing Distress.Journal of genetic counseling · 2018Article
- Genetic test reporting of CDKN2A provides informational and motivational benefits for managing melanoma risk.Translational behavioral medicine · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The purpose of the current study was to examine changes in frequency of discussion about melanoma preventive behaviors among adults who received melanoma genetic test reporting and counseling and their children and grandchildren, correspondence of frequency of discussion with intentions, and content of discussions. Participants received CDKN2A/p16 testing and counseling (N = 24, 46 % p16-positive). Discussions about preventive behaviors were assessed before testing and 1 and 6 months post-testing. Intentions to discuss preventive behaviors and perceived preparedness to discuss risk were assessed post-testing. Open-ended questions assessed content of reported discussions. Discussion of preventive behaviors declined following test reporting, with more rapid decline reported by noncarriers. There was a large gap between the percentage of participants who intended to discuss preventive behaviors and who then reported discussions 1 and 6 months after counseling. Participants felt prepared to discuss melanoma risk but also suggested resources to facilitate discussions. Genetic test reporting and counseling alone did not sustain discussions about preventive behaviors for a hereditary cancer with children and grandchildren. The gap between intentions to have discussions and reported discussions has implications for augmentation of counseling to support at-risk families' discussions about preventive behaviors.
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.