ArticlePublic health genomics2026
Survivors' Responses to an Online Intervention to Promote Discussions of Cancer Genetic Risk with Blood Relatives.
Article in Public health genomics, 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionMost studies of family communication about inherited risk of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome are conducted in high-risk clinic settings and show that cancer patients are highly selective in sharing inherited risk information. The reasoning processes behind this are not well understood and yet to be explored in population-based samples.
methodsWe conducted a secondary analysis of ovarian cancer survivors participating in the Your Family Connects communication intervention. Website use data were analyzed to assess survivors' choices of at-risk relatives for contact (i.e., total number and relationship). Retrospective online think-aloud interviews explored the decision-making processes driving which relatives were included or excluded.
resultsThe 116 participants enumerated 164 relatives (mean = 1.41; mode = 0; range = 0 to 7). Approximately one-third of them (45/116, 38.8%) did not enumerate any relatives. Most of the participants who identified relatives (71/116) identified female relatives (95 women vs. 30 men in first-degree relatives; 29 women and 10 men in second-degree relatives). When survivors were asked to deliberate about their enumeration behaviors, they described making heuristic-based judgments about which relatives would be most likely to follow through on genetic counseling. Survivors considered that female relatives would have the most to gain, but the relatives' age and the extent of emotional closeness were also important in the decision-making process.
conclusionFuture research is needed in population-based samples to understand these qualitative drivers and consider decision-aid strategies to help cancer patients consider options for communication that are sensitive to the multifactorial context of at-risk relatives' lives.
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.