Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30573802›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2019

Communication about genetic testing with breast and ovarian cancer patients: a scoping review.

Chris Jacobs, Christine Patch, Susan Michie

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of human genetics : EJHG, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing 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

25 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Development of a plain-language guide for discussing breast cancer genetic counseling and testing with patients with limited health literacy.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2021
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

3 authors.

Chris JacobsGraduate School of Health, University of Technology Sydney, PO Box 123, Broadway, NSW, 2007, Australia. chris.jacobs@uts.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0002-9557-9080
Christine PatchFlorence Nightingale Faculty, Nursing, Midwifery and Palliative Care, King's College London, 57 Waterloo Road, London, SE1 8WA, UK.
Susan MichieDepartment of Clinical, Education and Health Psychology, University College London, 1-19 Torrington Place, London, WC1E 7HB, UK.

Funding

DH | NIHR | Research Trainees Coordinating Centre (NIHR Research Trainees Coordinating Centre) DRF/2010/03/067
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Genetic testing of patients with cancer is increasingly offered to guide management, resulting in a growing need for oncology health professionals to communicate genetics information and facilitate informed decision-making in a short time frame. This scoping review aimed to map and synthesise what is known about health professionals' communication about genetic testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer with cancer patients. Four databases were systematically searched using a recognised scoping review method. Areas and types of research were mapped and a narrative synthesis of the findings was undertaken. Twenty-nine papers from 25 studies were included. Studies were identified about (i) information needs, (ii) process and content of genetic counselling, (iii) cognitive and emotional impact, including risk perception and recall, understanding and interpretation of genetic test results, and anxiety and distress, (iv) patients' experiences, (v) communication shortly after diagnosis and (vi) alternatives to face-to-face genetic counselling. Patients' need for cancer-focused, personalised information is not always met by genetic counselling. Genetic counselling tends to focus on biomedical information at the expense of psychological support. For most patients, knowledge is increased and anxiety is not raised by pre-test communication. However, some patients experience anxiety and distress when results are disclosed, particularly those tested shortly after diagnosis who are unprepared or unsupported. For many patients, pre-test communication by methods other than face-to-face genetic counselling is acceptable. Research is needed to identify patients who may benefit from genetic counselling and support and to investigate communication about hereditary breast and ovarian cancer by oncology health professionals.

Indexed as

Genetic Predisposition to DiseaseBreast NeoplasmsCommunicationDecision MakingFemaleGenetic CounselingGenetic TestingHumansMedical OncologyOvarian Neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID30573802
PMCPMC6460583

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.