Trial reportPsycho-oncology2019
A randomized controlled intervention to promote readiness to genetic counseling for breast cancer survivors.
Trial report in Psycho-oncology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Evidence-based advancements in breast cancer genetic counseling: a review.Breast cancer (Tokyo, Japan) · 2025Pooled it
- 'How Did That Make You Feel?' Latinas' Use of Genetic Counseling and Testing for Hereditary Cancer Risk After Watching a Culturally Targeted Video and Receiving Patient Navigation.Psycho-oncology · 2025Trial
- Randomized trial promoting cancer genetic risk assessment when genetic counseling cost removed: 1-year follow-up.JNCI cancer spectrum · 2024Trial
- Improving Uptake of Cancer Genetic Risk Assessment in a Remote Tailored Risk Communication and Navigation Intervention: Large Effect Size but Room to Grow.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2023Trial
- Patient decision support resources inform decisions about cancer susceptibility genetic testing and risk management: a systematic review of patient impact and experience.Frontiers in health services · 2023Review
- Genetic Evaluation for Hereditary Cancer Syndromes Among African Americans: A Critical Review.The oncologist · 2022Review
- Learner Verification: A Methodology to Create Suitable Education Materials.Health literacy research and practice · 2021Article
- Factors Influencing Discussion of Cancer Genetic Testing with Health-Care Providers in a Population-Based Survey.Public health genomics · 2021Article
- Assessing relatives' readiness for hereditary cancer cascade genetic testing.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2020Article
- Culturally Targeted Video Improves Psychosocial Outcomes in Latina Women at Risk of Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer.International journal of environmental research and public health · 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveBreast cancer (BC) survivors with a genetic mutation are at higher risk for subsequent cancer; knowing genetic risk status could help survivors make decisions about follow-up screening. Uptake of genetic counseling and testing (GC/GT) to determine BRCA status is low among high risk BC survivors. This study assessed feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary efficacy of a newly developed psychoeducational intervention (PEI) for GC/GT.
methodsHigh risk BC survivors (N = 119) completed a baseline questionnaire and were randomized to the intervention (PEI video/booklet) or control (factsheet) group. Follow-up questionnaires were completed 2 weeks after baseline (T2), and 4 months after T2 (T3). We analyzed recruitment, retention (feasibility), whether the participant viewed study materials (acceptability), intent to get GC/GT (efficacy), and psychosocial outcomes (eg, perceived risk, Impact of Events Scale [IES]). t tests or chi-square tests identified differences between intervention groups at baseline. Mixed models examined main effects of group, time, and group-by-time interactions.
resultsGroups were similar on demographic characteristics (P ≥ .05). Of participants who completed the baseline questionnaire, 91% followed through to study completion and 92% viewed study materials. A higher percentage of participants in the intervention group moved toward GC/GT (28% vs 8%; P = .027). Mixed models demonstrated significant group-by-time interactions for perceived risk (P = .029), IES (P = .027), and IES avoidance subscale (P = .012).
conclusionsThe PEI was feasible, acceptable, and efficacious. Women in the intervention group reported greater intentions to pursue GC, greater perceived risk, and decreased avoidance. Future studies should seek to first identify system-level barriers and facilitators before aiming to address individual-level barriers.
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.