Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31955387›Full record

ArticleJournal of community genetics2020

Parent and child perspectives on family interactions related to melanoma risk and prevention after CDKN2A/p16 testing of minor children.

Yelena P Wu, Lisa G Aspinwall, Bridget Parsons, Tammy K Stump, Katy Nottingham, Wendy Kohlmann, Marjan Champine, Pamela Cassidy, Sancy A Leachman

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of community genetics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Persisting Effects of a Social Media Campaign to Prevent Indoor Tanning: A Randomized Trial.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2022
    Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Yelena P WuDepartment of Dermatology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, USA. Yelena.Wu@utah.edu.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1571-6154
Lisa G AspinwallDepartment of Psychology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, USA.
Bridget ParsonsHuntsman Cancer Institute, 2000 Circle of Hope, Rm 4509, Salt Lake City, UT, 84112, USA.
Tammy K StumpDepartment of Preventive Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, USA.
Katy NottinghamHuntsman Cancer Institute, 2000 Circle of Hope, Rm 4509, Salt Lake City, UT, 84112, USA.
Wendy KohlmannHuntsman Cancer Institute, 2000 Circle of Hope, Rm 4509, Salt Lake City, UT, 84112, USA.
Marjan ChampineHuntsman Cancer Institute, 2000 Circle of Hope, Rm 4509, Salt Lake City, UT, 84112, USA.
Pamela CassidyDepartment of Dermatology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, USA.
Sancy A LeachmanDepartment of Dermatology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, USA.
Huntsman Cancer Institute · USUniversity of Utah · USOregon Health & Science University · USNorthwestern University · US

Funding

Impact of Melanoma Genetic Testing on Health Cognitions and Prevention BehaviorsR01CA158322 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF UTAH · PI ASPINWALL, LISA G, LEACHMAN, SANCY ANN · 2011 to 2016
$2.5M
Translational Approaches to Melanoma Prevention in Children at High Genetic RiskK07CA196985 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF UTAH · PI WU, YELENA PING · 2015 to 2019
$682k
NCI NIH HHS K07 CA196985NIH HHS K07 CA196985NIH HHS R01 CA158322
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Predispositional genetic testing of children for adult-onset health risks is typically only used when prevention and screening measures have utility during childhood. Little is known about how children and their parents may use predispositional risk information, including whether it changes their interactions around risk-reducing prevention and screening behaviors. The current study examined perspectives on family interactions around skin cancer prevention and control practices through 1 year after test reporting and counseling among children who received melanoma predispositional genetic testing and their parents. Eighteen children (50% carriers, 56% male, mean age = 12.4 years) and 11 parents from 11 families participated in semi-structured interviews 1 month and 1 year after receiving the child's test result. Both parents (73%) and children (50%) reported making changes to family skin cancer prevention and control practices after receiving the test result. Parent- and child-reported discussions about melanoma prevention increased over time (36% parents and 61% children at 1 month, 73% parents and 67% at 1 year). One-quarter (27%) of parents and no children reported having conflicts about sun protection or screening 1 year after test reporting. A majority of parents (63%) reported treating their child differently at the 1-year follow-up, especially among carriers. Predispositional genetic testing for melanoma was associated with reported changes to plans for and discussions about sun protection, and high levels of parent-child collaboration to implement child sun protection. Future work could seek to identify child and parent factors and interactions that predict improved prevention and screening behaviors following pediatric predispositional genetic testing.

Indexed as

CDKN2A/p16ChildrenMelanomaPredispositional genetic testingPrevention

Identifiers

PMID31955387
PMCPMC7295919
OpenAlexW2999524653

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.