ReviewPsycho-oncology2017
How do women at increased breast cancer risk perceive and decide between risks of cancer and risk-reducing treatments? A synthesis of qualitative research.
Review in Psycho-oncology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- How do women who are informed that they are at increased risk of breast cancer appraise their risk? A systematic review of qualitative research.British journal of cancer · 2022Pooled it
- Under-recognized risk factors and low perceived breast cancer risk among rural women in South-central China: A multisite cross-sectional study.Asia-Pacific journal of oncology nursing · 2025Article
- Predictors of nonadherence to breast cancer screening guidelines in a United States urban comprehensive cancer center.Cancer medicine · 2023Article
- '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 · 2022Article
- Breast cancer polygenic risk scores: a 12-month prospective study of patient reported outcomes and risk management behavior.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2021Article
- 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 · 2019Review
- Heightened perception of breast cancer risk in young women at risk of familial breast cancer.Familial cancer · 2018Article
- How do women at increased breast cancer risk perceive and decide between risks of cancer and risk-reducing treatments? A synthesis of qualitative research.Psycho-oncology · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveRisk-reducing procedures can be offered to people at increased cancer risk, but many procedures can have iatrogenic effects. People therefore need to weigh risks associated with both cancer and the risk-reduction procedure in their decisions. By reviewing relevant literature on breast cancer (BC) risk reduction, we aimed to understand how women at relatively high risk of BC perceive their risk and how their risk perceptions influence their decisions about risk reduction.
methodsSynthesis of 15 qualitative studies obtained from systematic searches of SCOPUS, Web of Knowledge, PsychINFO, and Medline electronic databases (inception-June 2015).
resultsWomen did not think about risk probabilistically. Instead, they allocated themselves to broad risk categories, typically influenced by their own or familial experiences of BC. In deciding about risk-reduction procedures, some women reported weighing the risks and benefits, but papers did not describe how they did so. For many women, however, an overriding wish to reduce intense worry about BC led them to choose aggressive risk-reducing procedures without such deliberation.
conclusionsReasoning that categorisation is a fundamental aspect of risk perception, we argue that patients can be encouraged to develop more nuanced and accurate categorisations of their own risk through their interactions with clinicians. Empirically-based ethical reflection is required to determine whether and when it is appropriate to provide risk-reduction procedures to alleviate worry.
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.