ArticleJournal of personalized medicine2019
Exploring Predictors of Genetic Counseling and Testing for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer: Findings from the 2015 U.S. National Health Interview Survey.
Article in Journal of personalized medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Patient perspectives on risk-reducing salpingectomy with delayed oophorectomy for ovarian cancer risk-reduction: A systematic review of the literature.Gynecologic oncology · 2023Pooled it
- Gender differences in self-reported family history of cancer: A review and secondary data analysis.Cancer medicine · 2020Pooled it
- Importance of Prior Patient Interactions With the Healthcare System to Engaging With Pretest Cancer Genetic Services via Digital Health Tools Among Unaffected Primary Care Patients: Findings From the BRIDGE Trial.Health services research · 2026Trial
- Web-based tool for cancer family history collection: A prospective randomized controlled trial.Gynecologic oncology · 2023Trial
- Assessment of a Peer Physician Coaching Partnership Between a Designated Cancer Center Genetics Service and a Community Cancer Network Hospital.JAMA network open · 2023Article
- Readiness to Accept Genetic Testing for Personalized Medicine: Survey Findings on the Role of Socio-Demographic Characteristics, Health Vulnerabilities, Perceived Genetic Risk and Personality Factors.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Article
- Relatives from Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer and Lynch Syndrome Families Forgoing Genetic Testing: Findings from the Swiss CASCADE Cohort.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Article
- Association between Health Insurance Type and Genetic Testing and/or Counseling for Breast and Ovarian Cancer.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Article
- Genetic Testing and/or Counseling for Colorectal Cancer by Health Insurance Type.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Article
- Prevalence of Americans reporting a family history of cancer indicative of increased cancer risk: Estimates from the 2015 National Health Interview Survey.Preventive medicine · 2022Article
- Are beliefs about the importance of genetics for cancer prevention and early detection associated with high risk cancer genetic testing in the U.S. Population?Preventive medicine reports · 2022Article
- Statewide trends and factors associated with genetic testing for hereditary cancer risk in Arkansas 2013-2018.Hereditary cancer in clinical practice · 2022Article
- Testing and extending strategies for identifying genetic disease-related encounters in pediatric patients.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2022Article
- Uptake of Genetic Testing Among Patients with Cancer At Risk for Lynch Syndrome in the National Health Interview Survey.Cancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.) · 2021Article
- Factors Influencing Discussion of Cancer Genetic Testing with Health-Care Providers in a Population-Based Survey.Public health genomics · 2021Article
- Predictors of genetic testing uptake in newly diagnosed breast cancer patients.Journal of surgical oncology · 2020Article
- Genetic Counseling, Testing, and Management of HBOC in India: An Expert Consensus Document from Indian Society of Medical and Pediatric Oncology.JCO global oncology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite efforts to increase the availability of clinical genetic testing and counseling for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian (HBOC)-related cancers, these services remain underutilized in clinical settings. There have been few efforts to understand the public's use of cancer genetic services, particularly for HBOC-related cancers. This analysis is based on data from the 2015 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), a U.S.-based nationwide probability sample, to better understand the public's use of HBOC-related clinical cancer genetic services. Bivariate analyses were used to compute percentages and examine the associations of familial cancer risk for three genetic services outcomes (ever had genetic counseling for cancer risk, ever discussed genetic testing for cancer risk with a provider, and ever had genetic testing for cancer risk). Multivariable logistic regression models were used to estimate the association of familial cancer risk and other demographic and health variables with genetic services. Most women (87.67%) in this study were at low risk based on self-reported family history of breast and ovarian cancer, 10.65% were at medium risk, and 1.68% were at high risk. Overall, very small numbers of individuals had ever had genetic counseling (2.78%), discussed genetic testing with their physician (4.55%) or had genetic testing (1.64%). Across all genetic services outcomes, individuals who were at higher familial risk were more likely to have had genetic counseling than those at lower risk (high risk: aOR = 5.869, 95% CI = 2.911-11.835; medium risk: aOR = 4.121, 95% CI = 2.934-5.789), discussed genetic testing (high risk: aOR = 5.133, 95% CI = 2.699-9.764; medium risk: aOR = 3.649, 95% CI = 2.696-4.938), and completed genetic testing (high risk: aOR = 8.531, 95% CI = 3.666-19.851; medium risk aOR = 3.057, 95% CI = 1.835-5.094). Those who perceived themselves as being more likely to develop cancer than the average woman were more likely to engage in genetic counseling (aOR = 1.916, 95% CI = 1.334-2.752), discuss genetic testing (aOR = 3.314, 95% CI = 2.463-4.459) or have had genetic testing (aOR = 1.947, 95% CI = 1.13-3.54). Personal cancer history was also a significant predictor of likelihood to have engaged in genetic services. Our findings highlight: (1) potential under-utilization of cancer genetic services among high risk populations in the U.S. and (2) differences in genetic services use based on individual's characteristics such as self-reported familial risk, personal history, and beliefs about risk of cancer. These results align with other studies which have noted that awareness and use of genetic services are low in the general population and likely not reaching individuals who could benefit most from screening for inherited cancers. Efforts to promote public awareness of familial cancer risk may lead to better uptake of cancer genetic services.
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.