Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37395149›Full record

ArticleBritish journal of health psychology2023

How do women at increased risk of breast cancer make sense of their risk? An interpretative phenomenological analysis.

Victoria G Woof, Lorna McWilliams, Anthony Howell, D Gareth Evans, David P French

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in British journal of health psychology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Are Women's Breast Cancer Risk Appraisals in Line with Updated Clinical Risk Estimates Communicated? Results from a UK Family History Risk and Prevention Clinic.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Victoria G WoofUniversity of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4069-5188
Lorna McWilliamsUniversity of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6414-2732
Anthony HowellUniversity of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6233-719X
D Gareth EvansUniversity of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8482-5784
David P FrenchUniversity of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7663-7804
University of Manchester · GBFlorence Nightingale Foundation · GB

Funding

Breast Cancer NowMedical Research Council
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesOffering breast cancer risk prediction for all women of screening age is being considered globally. For women who have received a clinically derived estimate, risk appraisals are often inaccurate. This study aimed to gain an in-depth understanding of women's lived experiences of receiving an increased breast cancer risk.

designOne-to-one semi-structured telephone interviews.

methodsEight women informed that they were at a 10-year above-average (moderate) or high risk in a breast cancer risk study (BC-Predict) were interviewed about their views on breast cancer, personal breast cancer risk and risk prevention. Interviews lasted between 40 and 70 min. Data were analysed using Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis.

resultsFour themes were generated: (i) encounters with breast cancer and perceived personal significance, where the nature of women's lived experiences of others with breast cancer impacted their views on the significance of the disease, (ii) 'It's random really': difficulty in seeking causal attributions, where women encountered contradictions and confusion in attributing causes to breast cancer, (iii) believing versus identifying with a clinically-derived breast cancer risk, where personal risk appraisals and expectations influenced women's ability to internalize their clinically derived risk and pursue preventative action and (iv) perceived utility of breast cancer risk notification, where women reflected on the usefulness of knowing their risk.

conclusionsProviding (numerical) risk estimates appear to have little impact on stable yet internally contradictory beliefs about breast cancer risk. Given this, discussions with healthcare professionals are needed to help women form more accurate appraisals and make informed decisions.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsFemaleHumansQualitative ResearchRiskbreast cancerhigh riskinterpretative phenomenological analysisqualitativerisk appraisalsrisk communication

Identifiers

PMID37395149
PMCPMC10947456
OpenAlexW4382918761

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.