ArticleJournal of health communication2017
Cancer Risk Information Sharing: The Experience of Individuals Receiving Genetic Counseling for BRCA1/2 Mutations.
Article in Journal of health communication, 2017. 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.
- Systematic evidence review and meta-analysis of outcomes associated with cancer genetic counseling.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2024Pooled it
- A systematic review of theory-informed strategies used in interventions fostering family genetic risk communication.Patient education and counseling · 2022Pooled it
- Awareness of the mythical causes of cancer in central Uganda: a community cross-sectional survey.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2026Article
- Cancer history and cancer risk communication among Arab-American families: Perspectives of young Arab-Americans in Michigan.Journal of genetic counseling · 2026Article
- Patient-derived outcome assessment of knowledge, communication, and management in those diagnosed with BAP1-tumor predisposition syndrome.Familial cancer · 2026Article
- Communication with physicians and family about breast Cancer recurrence.PEC innovation · 2023Article
- Applying the framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions to increase family communication about hereditary cancer.PEC innovation · 2023Article
- The Communication Chain of Genetic Risk: Analyses of Narrative Data Exploring Proband-Provider and Proband-Family Communication in Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Article
- Sex Differences in Attitudes Toward Marriage and Childbearing Based on the Assumption of BeingJournal of breast cancer · 2022Article
- Public Interest in Population Genetic Screening for Cancer Risk.Frontiers in genetics · 2022Article
- A scoping review of social and behavioral science research to translate genomic discoveries into population health impact.Translational behavioral medicine · 2021Article
- Expanding the search for germline pathogenic variants for breast cancer. How far should we go and how high should we jump? The missed opportunity!Oncology reviews · 2021Article
- Feasibility of genetic testing for cancer risk assessment programme in Nigeria.Ecancermedicalscience · 2021Article
- How the "control-fate continuum" helps explain the genetic testing decision-making process: a grounded theory study.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2020Article
- Update on multi-gene panel testing and communication of genetic test results.The breast journal · 2020Article
- The big reveal: Family disclosure patterns of BRCA genetic test results among young Black women with invasive breast cancer.Journal of genetic counseling · 2020Article
- An in-depth exploration of the post-test informational needs ofHereditary cancer in clinical practice · 2020Article
- Characterization of BRCA1 and BRCA2 genetic variants in a cohort of Bahraini breast cancer patients using next-generation sequencing.Molecular genetics & genomic medicine · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Genetic counseling and testing for familial cancer is a unique context for the communication of risk information in the family. This study utilized a theoretical framework based on the family systems perspective to understand intrafamilial cancer risk communication patterns in the Ashkenazi Jewish population. Individuals (n = 120) at an elevated risk for BRCA1/2 mutations were included. Change in communication patterns over time was assessed using McNemar tests. Associations with communication patterns were assessed with multivariable logistic regression. Overall, the proportion of participants encouraged by others significantly (p < .001) increased from before to after genetic counseling. A higher proportion of participants were encouraged by female family members compared with male family members. Participants who were older, had no personal history of cancer, and had a higher cancer risk perception were more likely to be encouraged by others for genetic testing. Participant's intent to encourage family members for genetic testing from before counseling to after receipt of genetic test results decreased by 16.7%. Participants who had no personal history of cancer and had informative test results for a BRCA1/2 mutation were more likely to encourage other family members for genetic testing. In addition, qualitative findings suggested that closeness among family members, concern for family, especially future generations, and cognizance about cancer risk facilitate information sharing and encouragement for genetic testing. Our findings indicate that intrafamilial cancer risk communication varies with the structure of family relationships and that genetic counseling can play an important role in improving intrafamilial cancer risk communication.
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.