Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35399119›Full record

Observational studyEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2022

Assessment of psychosocial difficulties by genetic clinicians and distress in women at high risk of breast cancer: a prospective study.

Anne Brédart, Jean-Luc Kop, Anja Tüchler, Antoine De Pauw, Alejandra Cano, Julia Dick, Kerstin Rhiem, Peter Devilee, Rita Schmutzler, Dominique Stoppa-Lyonnet and 1 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in European journal of human genetics : EJHG, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04145817 (Clinical Application of the European Horizon 2020 Research Project "BRIDGES" - Study of the Psychological Impact of Breast Cancer Risk Communication in Cancer Genetics Based on the Personalized Estimation of the BOADICEA V5/PLUS Model), which is not on this map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT04145817 nacompletednot on this map

Clinical Application of the European Horizon 2020 Research Project "BRIDGES" - Study of the Psychological Impact of Breast Cancer Risk Communication in Cancer Genetics Based on the Personalized Estimation of the BOADICEA V5/PLUS Model

TypeinterventionalSponsorInstitut CurieRan2019 to 2022Enrolled405ConditionsGenetic Predisposition to DiseaseArmsBRIDGES gene panel testing, Breast cancer risk polygenic risk score (PRS), Questionnaires
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Factors associated with psychological distress during genetic counseling in high-risk women with breast cancer in Turkey.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Guidelines, guidelines everywhere-and still I'm not sure what to do.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2022
    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

11 authors.

Anne BrédartInstitut Curie, Supportive Care Department, Psycho-oncology Unit, 26 rue d'Ulm, 75005, Paris Cedex 05, France. anne.bredart@curie.fr.ORCID 0000-0002-1864-5371
Jean-Luc KopUniversité de Lorraine, 2LPN, 3 Place Godefroy de Bouillon, 54015, Nancy Cedex, France.ORCID 0000-0002-6963-8411
Anja TüchlerCenter for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University Hospital of Cologne, University of Cologne, Kerpener Str. 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-9985-8397
Antoine De PauwInstitut Curie, Department of Genetics, INSERM U830, Paris University, 26 rue d'Ulm, 75005, Paris Cedex 05, France.ORCID 0000-0003-3898-073X
Alejandra CanoUniversity Autónoma of Barcelona, Clinical and Health Psychology Department, Barcelona, Spain.
Julia DickCenter for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University Hospital of Cologne, University of Cologne, Kerpener Str. 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany.
Kerstin RhiemCenter for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University Hospital of Cologne, University of Cologne, Kerpener Str. 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany.
Peter DevileeLeiden University Medical Centre, Department of Human Genetics, Department of Pathology, S4-P, P.O. Box 9600, 2300 RC, Leiden, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-8023-2009
Rita SchmutzlerCenter for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University Hospital of Cologne, University of Cologne, Kerpener Str. 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany.
Dominique Stoppa-LyonnetInstitut Curie, Department of Genetics, INSERM U830, Paris University, 26 rue d'Ulm, 75005, Paris Cedex 05, France.ORCID 0000-0002-5438-8309
Sylvie DolbeaultInstitut Curie, Supportive Care Department, Psycho-oncology Unit, 26 rue d'Ulm, 75005, Paris Cedex 05, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We examined how often genetic clinicians correctly identify psychosocial difficulties in women at high breast cancer risk and explored effects of this assessment and the genetic test result on counselees' distress. A prospective observational study of counselee-clinician dyads was performed in three French, German and Spanish genetic clinics, involving 709 counselees (participation rate, 83.4%) and 31 clinicians (participation rate, 100%). Counselee-clinician agreement in perceived psychosocial difficulties was measured after the pre-test genetic consultation. Multivariate mixed linear models accounting for clinicians were tested. Predicted distress levels were assessed after the pre- (T1) and post-test result disclosure consultations (T2). Depending on the difficulty domain, clinicians adequately assessed the presence or absence of difficulties in 51% ("familial issues") to 59% ("emotions") of counselees. When counselees' and clinicians' perceptions disagreed, difficulties were generally underestimated by clinicians. Counselees' distress levels remained stable from T1 to T2, irrespective of clinicians' appraisal adequacy, and the genetic test result disclosure. Psychological referral need were found in 20-42% of counselees, more frequently observed for difficulties in the "emotions" domain. Our findings suggest that the genetic test result is a suboptimal indicator for psychological referral. Instead, clinicians should focus on emotions expressed by counselees to appraise their needs for psychological support.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsGenetic CounselingFemaleGenetic Predisposition to DiseaseHumansProspective StudiesSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID35399119
PMCPMC9437045

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.