Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29385583›Full record

ArticleTranslational behavioral medicine2018

Preferences for learning different types of genome sequencing results among young breast cancer patients: Role of psychological and clinical factors.

Kimberly A Kaphingst, Jennifer Ivanovich, Sarah Lyons, Barbara Biesecker, Rebecca Dresser, Ashley Elrick, Cindy Matsen, Melody Goodman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Translational behavioral medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. A primer in genomics for social and behavioral investigators.Translational behavioral medicine · 2020
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Kimberly A KaphingstHuntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
Jennifer IvanovichDivision of Public Health Sciences, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Sarah LyonsDivision of Public Health Sciences, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Barbara BieseckerSocial and Behavioral Research Branch, National Human Genome Research Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Rebecca DresserSchool of Law, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Ashley ElrickHuntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
Cindy MatsenHuntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
Melody GoodmanCollege of Global Public Health, New York University, New York, NY, USA.

Funding

Interventions in Genetic CounselingZIAHG200317 · NHGRI · NATIONAL HUMAN GENOME RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI BIESECKER, BARBARA BOWLES · 2009 to 2018
$7.6M
COMMUNICATION PREFERENCES FOR GENOME SEQUENCING RESULTS IN BREAST CANCER PATIENTSR01CA168608 · NCI · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI GOODMAN, MELODY S, KAPHINGST, KIMBERLY A · 2012 to 2014
$826k
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA168608
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The growing importance of genome sequencing means that patients will increasingly face decisions regarding what results they would like to learn. The present study examined psychological and clinical factors that might affect these preferences. 1,080 women diagnosed with breast cancer at age 40 or younger completed an online survey. We assessed their interest in learning various types of genome sequencing results: risk of preventable disease or unpreventable disease, cancer treatment response, uncertain meaning, risk to relatives' health, and ancestry/physical traits. Multivariable logistic regression was used to examine whether being "very" interested in each result type was associated with clinical factors: BRCA1/2 mutation status, prior genetic testing, family history of breast cancer, and psychological factors: cancer recurrence worry, genetic risk worry, future orientation, health information orientation, and genome sequencing knowledge. The proportion of respondents who were very interested in learning each type of result ranged from 16% to 77%. In all multivariable models, those who were very interested in learning a result type had significantly higher knowledge about sequencing benefits, greater genetic risks worry, and stronger health information orientation compared to those with less interest (p-values < .05). Our findings indicate that high interest in return of various types of genome sequencing results was more closely related to psychological factors. Shared decision-making approaches that increase knowledge about genome sequencing and incorporate patient preferences for health information and learning about genetic risks may help support patients' informed choices about learning different types of sequencing results.

Indexed as

Genetic Predisposition to DiseaseGenetic TestingHealth CommunicationAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAge FactorsBreast NeoplasmsDecision MakingFemaleHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansLearningMiddle AgedPatient PreferenceBreast cancerDecision supportGenome sequencingGenomic knowledgePatient preferencesReturn of results

Identifiers

PMID29385583
PMCPMC6065546

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.