Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30877488›Full record

ArticleJournal of community genetics2019

Does family communication matter? Exploring knowledge of breast cancer genetics in cancer families.

Deborah O Himes, Sarah H Davis, Jane H Lassetter, Neil E Peterson, Margaret F Clayton, Wendy C Birmingham, Anita Y Kinney

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of community genetics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Genetic testing for hereditary cancer syndromes: patient recommendations for improved risk communication.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2020
    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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Deborah O HimesCollege of Nursing, Brigham Young University, 500 Spencer W. Kimball Tower, Provo, UT, USA. Deborah-himes@byu.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0799-1228
Sarah H DavisCollege of Nursing, Brigham Young University, 500 Spencer W. Kimball Tower, Provo, UT, USA.
Jane H LassetterCollege of Nursing, Brigham Young University, 500 Spencer W. Kimball Tower, Provo, UT, USA.
Neil E PetersonCollege of Nursing, Brigham Young University, 500 Spencer W. Kimball Tower, Provo, UT, USA.
Margaret F ClaytonCollege of Nursing, University of Utah, 10 South 2000 East, Salt Lake City, UT, 84112, USA.
Wendy C BirminghamDepartment of Psychology, Brigham Young University, 1054 Spencer W. Kimball Tower, Provo, UT, 84604, USA.
Anita Y KinneyDepartment of Epidemiology - School of Public Health, Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA.
Brigham Young University · USRutgers, The State University of New Jersey · USUniversity of Utah · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Knowledge of breast cancer genetics is critical for those at increased hereditary risk who must make decisions about breast cancer screening options. This descriptive study explored theory-based relationships among cognitive and emotional variables related to knowledge of breast cancer genetics in cancer families. Participants included first-degree relatives of women with breast cancer who had received genetic counseling and testing. Study participants themselves did not have breast cancer and had not received genetic counseling or testing. Data were collected by telephone interviews and surveys. Variables analyzed included numeracy, health literacy, cancer-related distress, age, education, and the reported amount of information shared by the participants' family members about genetic counseling. The multiple regression model explained 13.9% of variance in knowledge of breast cancer genetics (p = 0.03). Best fit of the multiple regression model included all variables except education. Reported amount of information shared was the only independently significant factor associated with knowledge (β = 0.28, p = 0.01). Participants who reported higher levels of information shared by a family member about information learned during a genetic counseling session also demonstrated increased knowledge about breast cancer genetics.

Indexed as

Breast cancerCancer geneticsFamily communicationGenetic counselingHealth literacyKnowledgeNumeracyPrecision medicine

Identifiers

PMID30877488
PMCPMC6754477
OpenAlexW2921921129

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.