Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32203201›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2020

How the "control-fate continuum" helps explain the genetic testing decision-making process: a grounded theory study.

Bettina M Zimmermann, David Shaw, Karl Heinimann, Laura Knabben, Bernice Elger, Insa Koné

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of human genetics : EJHG, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 24% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. 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

6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Bettina M ZimmermannInstitute for Biomedical Ethics, University of Basel, Bernoullistrasse 28, 4056, Basel, Switzerland. bettina.zimmermann@unibas.ch.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7047-4496
David ShawInstitute for Biomedical Ethics, University of Basel, Bernoullistrasse 28, 4056, Basel, Switzerland.
Karl HeinimannInstitute for Medical Genetics and Pathology, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Laura KnabbenDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital of Bern and University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Bernice ElgerInstitute for Biomedical Ethics, University of Basel, Bernoullistrasse 28, 4056, Basel, Switzerland.
Insa KonéInstitute for Biomedical Ethics, University of Basel, Bernoullistrasse 28, 4056, Basel, Switzerland.
University of Basel · CHUniversity Hospital of Basel · CHUniversity of Bern · CHUniversity of Geneva · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Genetic testing decision-making for cancer predisposition is inherently complex. Understanding the mechanisms and influencing factors of the decision-making process is essential for genetic counselling and has not yet been investigated in Switzerland. This study's aim is thus to provide a theory about the individual's decision-making process regarding genetic testing for cancer predispositions in order to provide medical geneticists and genetic counsellors with insights into the needs and expectations of counsellees. We interviewed at-risk individuals who underwent genetic counselling in a clinical setting in Switzerland, using a grounded theory approach. Based on the interview data, we propose that a control-fate continuum, which is part of the individuals' life philosophy, importantly influences the decision-making process. Those in need for control decide differently compared with those leaving their future to fate. Several psychosocial factors influence the position on the control-fate continuum: "looking for certainty"; "anticipating consequences"; "being socially influenced"; "simplifying risks"; and "deciding intuitively vs reflectively". The control-fate continuum theory gives insights into the possible reasons behind decision-making regarding genetic testing for cancer predispositions. It includes both acceptors and decliners of genetic testing. Our theory helps healthcare professionals offering genetic counselling to anticipate problems within at-risk families and adapting their services to people's needs.

Indexed as

Decision MakingGenetic TestingGrounded TheoryAdultFemaleGenetic Predisposition to DiseaseHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasmsPatients

Identifiers

PMID32203201
PMCPMC7381626
OpenAlexW3012001375

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.