Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29955974›Full record

ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2019

Development of Breast Cancer Choices: a decision support tool for young women with breast cancer deciding whether to have genetic testing for BRCA1/2 mutations.

Chloe Grimmett, Charlotte Brooks, Alejandra Recio-Saucedo, Anne Armstrong, Ramsey I Cutress, D Gareth Evans, Ellen Copson, Lesley Turner, Bettina Meiser, Claire E Wakefield and 2 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Systematic Development of Patient Decision Aids: An Update from the IPDAS Collaboration.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2021
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Chloe GrimmettFaculty of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Charlotte BrooksFaculty of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Alejandra Recio-SaucedoNational Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) Wessex, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Anne ArmstrongChristie Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Ramsey I CutressCancer Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK.
D Gareth EvansGenomic Medicine, Division of Evolution and Genomic Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Ellen CopsonCancer Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK.
Lesley TurnerResearch Partner, Southampton, UK.
Bettina MeiserFaculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales, Kensington, NSW, 2033, Australia.
Claire E WakefieldKids Cancer Centre, Sydney Children's Hospital, Randwick, NSW, 2031, Australia.
Diana EcclesCancer Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK. D.M.Eccles@soton.ac.uk.
Claire FosterFaculty of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK. C.L.Foster@soton.ac.uk.

Funding

Breast Cancer Now 2014May/PR270
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo develop a decision support tool for young women with breast cancer considering genetic testing for BRCA1/2 mutations soon after cancer diagnosis.

methodsA four-stage iterative development process was employed; stage 1, literature review exploring the availability and efficacy of empirically tested decision support tools; stage 2, in-depth interviews with 29 young women (< 50 years) recently diagnosed with breast cancer, exploring information requirements and experiences of genetic testing decision making; stage 3, three focus groups (N = 21) exploring preferences for information presentation and prioritisation of content; stage 4, think-aloud interviews to refine the prototype (N = 16).

resultsParticipants wanted information regarding the pros and cons of testing, the testing process and implications for their family, presented in a way that allowed them to choose the level of detail they required. They preferred the term 'altered gene', valued a medical word definition function and warnings before accessing sensitive information.

conclusionParticipants valued the decision support tool, the accessibility of the information and its clinical endorsement. The decision support tool has considerable clinical utility as an adjunct to genetic counselling or for use in busy oncology clinics where formal genetic counselling may be unavailable.

Indexed as

AdultBreast NeoplasmsDecision MakingFemaleGenes, BRCA1Genes, BRCA2Genetic CounselingGenetic TestingHumansMutationBRCABreast cancerDecision aidGenetic testing

Identifiers

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.