ArticleBMC cancer2026
How do women experience a change in their clinically-derived breast cancer risk estimates: views from a UK family history risk and prevention clinic.
Article in BMC cancer, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIntroducing breast density and polygenic risk scores into breast cancer prediction models results in greater precision and can involve alterations to previously communicated risk estimates and preventative management. This study explored how women from a UK family history risk and prevention clinic view, experience and understand a change in their communicated risk.
methodsTwenty-two women were interviewed; 11 received an increased risk and 11 a decreased risk. Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis.
resultsFour themes were generated: (i) unaware of possibility of risk change, illustrating women believed their risk estimates would remain unaltered due to their family history, hence receiving a lower risk was shocking but a relief, but an increased risk somewhat unsurprising, (ii) a trusted source influences adapted risk appraisals, highlighting the clinic's reputation as an information source, as well as personal connections with the service effecting risk appraisals, (iii) perceived value of new risk factor knowledge, where women contemplated the usefulness of knowing their breast density and polygenic risk scores, (iv) heart versus head: changes in preventative management, where the implications of an updated risk estimate was processed.
conclusionsWomen reacted positively to their updated breast cancer risk estimates and trusted the information provided, even when preventative management options changed.
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.