Trial reportPloS one2024
Decisional conflict and knowledge in women with BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants: An exploratory age group analysis of a randomised controlled decision aid trial.
Trial report in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The impact of breast cancer polygenic risk score disclosure on decisional conflict around risk-reducing mastectomy in women with pathogenic BRCA1/2 variants.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Female BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant (PV) carriers face substantial risks for breast and ovarian cancer. Evidence-based decision aids (DAs) can facilitate these women in their decision-making process on an individually suitable preventive strategy. However, there is a gap in previous literature exploring whether DA effectiveness varies according to women's age. This is an exploratory subanalysis with a descriptive approach from a randomised controlled study assessing the effectiveness of a German decision aid (DA) for women with BRCA1/2 PVs compared to no DA use. From the original sample, women aged 18-40 years and >40 years and the intervention and control groups (IG, CG) within each of the age groups were compared regarding decisional conflict (using the Decisional Conflict Scale DCS) and knowledge at baseline and after DA use three and six months post study inclusion. The subanalysis involved 236 women aged 18-40 and 181 women aged >40 years. At baseline, both age groups differed significantly in all socio-demographic variables, except BRCA1/2 PV distributions. The younger age group displayed higher scores in the DCS subscale informed (p = .002) and higher knowledge (p = .010). Among the 18-40-year-olds, DA use (versus no DA) led to improvements in the DCS subscale informed at three (p = .025) and six months (p = .000). In the >40-year-olds, DA use (versus no DA) led to improvements in the DCS subscales informed (p = .028), values clarity (p = .028) and support (p = .030) and increased knowledge at three months (p = .048). These results indicate that both age groups benefited from DA use, but the older ones did so to a greater extent. This suggests that it might be useful to tailor DAs more closely to age- or life stage-related needs to enable more personalised care and support for women with BRCA1/2 PVs.
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.