ArticleScientific reports2026
Unique perspectives about men's awareness of BRCA1/2 genetic testing in primary care.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Men with BRCA1/2 genetic mutations have elevated risks for prostate, pancreatic, and breast cancers, yet recommendations for screening and risk assessment are unknown. Referral patterns reveal substantial under-identification and under-testing of at-risk men, with inconsistent documentation of paternal cancer history and low rates of referral to genetic services. Scarce research has examined men's perception of this gene mutation and associated variables. This study aimed to assess men's perception of BRCA1/2 genetic testing status, cancer risks, seriousness and susceptibility, and sources of health information. A cross-sectional survey with a convenience sample of men in the community without a history of cancer or a known BRCA 1/2 genetic mutation status. Susceptibility, seriousness, personal perceived risk, and sources of health information were examined. Among 234 men surveyed, 97% reported healthcare providers as their primary source of health information. Although 69% reported a family history of cancer, over half (58%) were unaware of their own or family's BRCA1/2 status, largely due to not knowing what BRCA1/2 was. While 52% perceived prostate cancer as a high-risk condition for men in general, only 22% viewed their own personal risk for prostate cancer as high. Most participants reported not knowing about BRCA1/2 gene mutations, and that they receive health related information from healthcare providers, therefore, primary care providers play a critical role in identifying those at risk by thorough assessment of patients' family cancer history and providing guidance for screening and surveillance.
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.