Acceptability of the ePOWER intervention: Managing previvors' cancer-related uncertainty and supporting decision making.

Marleah Dean, Bethany Jowers, Claire Conley, Erica Camacho, Whitney Espinel, Kimberly A Kaphingst

Abstract read

In one paragraph

Article in PEC innovation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

0citing 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.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Marleah DeanDepartment of Communication, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA.

Bethany JowersDepartment of Communication, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA.

Claire ConleyDepartment of Oncology, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA.

Erica CamachoDepartment of Communication, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA.

Whitney EspinelDepartment of Communication, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.

Kimberly A KaphingstDepartment of Communication, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: Previvors-unaffected individuals who have increased risk of cancer due to a pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant in a gene-experience high levels of uncertainty, which is associated with negative outcomes. The ePOWER (empowering Preventive Options for Women Experiencing Risk) intervention is designed to help Methods: Previvors ( Results: Adequate acceptability was demonstrated by TAPS scores. 88 % of participants exceeded the a priori acceptability threshold (TAPS ≥3). Deductive coding using LV&R categories also confirmed ePOWER was visually appealing, understandable, persuasive, cultural appropriate, and fostered self-efficacy. Inductive thematic analysis expanded on the LV&R categories and identified two additional themes: (1) relatability and emotional support and (2) useful resource. Conclusion: ePOWER is an acceptable intervention to help previvors manage cancer-related uncertainty and support decision making. Innovation: The ePOWER intervention can be shared during healthcare appointments and then utilized continuously by previvors to manage uncertainty and facilitate decisions.

Indexed as

Decision makingGenetic counselingInterventionMultiple methodsUncertainty

Identifiers

PMID40485758

DOI10.1016/j.pecinn.2025.100402

PMCPMC12143645

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.