Effects of counseling Ashkenazi Jewish women about breast cancer risk.

Bowen, Deborah J.; Burke, Wylie; Culver, Julie O.; Press, Nancy; Crystal, Susan

doi:10.1037/1099-9809.12.1.45

Cited by 19 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For instance, in several studies accurate risk perception is defined as falling within a certain category (e.g., Bjorvatn et al 2007;Kelly et al 2003;Lidén et al 2003) or within 50% of the counseled risk (e.g., Pieterse et al 2006;Rothemund et al 2001), while the majority define it as the correct counseled risk estimate (e.g., Bowen et al 2006;Hopwood et al 2003;Tercyak et al 2001). Additionally, the reviewed studies based the counseled risk estimate on different methods, such as family history assessment (Huiart et al 2002), Gail's score (Bowen et al 2006), or the BRCAPRO procedure (Kelly et al 2003). These issues reduce our ability to compare the results of the studies, thereby lessening their value.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Systematic Review of the Impact of Genetic Counseling on Risk Perception Accuracy

Smerecnik

Mesters

Verweij

et al. 2009

Journal of Genetic Counseling

104

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This review presents an overview of the impact of genetic counseling on risk perception accuracy in papers published between January 2000 and February 2007. The results suggest that genetic counseling may have a positive impact on risk perception accuracy, though some studies observed no impact at all, or only for low-risk participants. Several implications for future research can be deduced. First, future researchers should link risk perception changes to objective risk estimates, define risk perception accuracy as the correct counseled risk estimate, and report both the proportion of individuals who correctly estimate their risk and the average overestimation of the risk. Second, as the descriptions of the counseling sessions were generally poor, future research should include more detailed description of these sessions and link their content to risk perception outcomes to allow interpretation of the results. Finally, the effect of genetic counseling should be examined for a wider variety of hereditary conditions. Genetic counselors should provide the necessary context in which counselees can understand risk information, use both verbal and numerical risk estimates to communicate personal risk information, and use visual aids when communicating numerical risk information.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Concerning the content and quality of the genetic counseling sessions, four studies mentioned using a genetic counseling protocol (Bjorvatn et al 2007;Bowen et al 2006;Kaiser et al 2004;van Dijk et al 2003). Two mentioned using a standardized counseling script (Codori et al 2005;Tercyak et al 2001).…”

Section: Content Of the Counseling Sessionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Systematic Review of the Impact of Genetic Counseling on Risk Perception Accuracy

Smerecnik

Mesters

Verweij

et al. 2009

Journal of Genetic Counseling

104

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There were four times more women (N = 16,064) than men (N = 4716). The majority of studies recruited healthy participants, whilst seven studies recruited participants thought or known to be at higher risk than average for the screened condition (Bodurtha et al , 2009; D. J. Bowen, Burke, Culver, Press, and Crystal, 2006; Glanz, Steffen, and Taglialatela, 2007; Glenn et al , 2011; Lipkus and Klein, 2006; Manne et al , 2009; Rawl et al , 2012). Participants’ age ranged from 18-74 years.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The most common (N = 7 studies) was screening for colorectal cancer, followed by screening for breast cancer or its gene (N = 5). Four of the eighteen RCTs had two IRC intervention arms (D. J. Bowen et al , 2006; Helmes, Culver, and Bowen, 2006; Lipkus and Klein, 2006; Manne et al , 2009) leading to a total of twenty-two IRC interventions. Within studies, intervention arms differed in risk presentation format.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The intervention material differed in complexity. A total of thirteen studies provided participants with some form of educational material regarding a disease/screening test (Allen et al , 2010; Bodurtha et al , 2009; D. J. Bowen et al , 2006; Deborah J. Bowen and Powers, 2010; D. J. Bowen et al , 2011; Glenn et al , 2011; Harari et al , 2008; Helmes et al , 2006; Lipkus and Klein, 2006; Rawl et al , 2012; Schroy et al , 2011; Schroy et al , 2012; Steckelberg, Hulfenhaus, Haastert, and Muhlhauser, 2011; Yuksel, Majumdar, Biggs, and Tsuyuki, 2010; Yuksel, Tsuyuki, and Majumdar, 2012). In two studies educational information was provided alongside a decision-aid tool (Allen et al , 2010; Schroy et al , 2011; Schroy et al , 2012).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A systematic review of the effect of individualized risk communication strategies on screening uptake and its psychological predictors: the role of psychology theory

Bould¹,

Daly²,

Dunne³

et al. 2016

Health Psych Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

People might be more likely to attend for health screening if they are told their individual risk of an illness. The way this risk of ill-health is communicated might have an effect on screening uptake or its psychological proxies. It is possible that the format, presentation, and details of the information as well as the complexity of an intervention and use of psychological theory to inform the intervention may impact the effectiveness of individual risk communication. This systematic review collates, analyses and synthesizes the evidence for effectiveness of these aspects of individual risk communication. The synthesis indicated that written, individualized risk scores or categories are effective at supporting screening uptake and its psychological proxies. Complex, or theory-based interventions, surprisingly, are no more effective than simpler or atheoretical interventions.

show abstract

Risk Assessment, Genetic Counseling, and Genetic Testing forBRCA-Related Cancer

Owens

Davidson

Krist

et al. 2019

JAMA

346

121

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

US Preventive Services Task Force IMPORTANCE Potentially harmful mutations of the breast cancer susceptibility 1 and 2 genes (BRCA1/2) are associated with increased risk for breast, ovarian, fallopian tube, and peritoneal cancer. For women in the United States, breast cancer is the most common cancer after nonmelanoma skin cancer and the second leading cause of cancer death. In the general population, BRCA1/2 mutations occur in an estimated 1 in 300 to 500 women and account for 5% to 10% of breast cancer cases and 15% of ovarian cancer cases. OBJECTIVE To update the 2013 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation on risk assessment, genetic counseling, and genetic testing for BRCA-related cancer. EVIDENCE REVIEW The USPSTF reviewed the evidence on risk assessment, genetic counseling, and genetic testing for potentially harmful BRCA1/2 mutations in asymptomatic women who have never been diagnosed with BRCA-related cancer, as well as those with a previous diagnosis of breast, ovarian, tubal, or peritoneal cancer who have completed treatment and are considered cancer free. In addition, the USPSTF reviewed interventions to reduce the risk for breast, ovarian, tubal, or peritoneal cancer in women with potentially harmful BRCA1/2 mutations, including intensive cancer screening, medications, and risk-reducing surgery. FINDINGS For women whose family or personal history is associated with an increased risk for harmful mutations in the BRCA1/2 genes, or who have an ancestry associated with BRCA1/2 gene mutations, there is adequate evidence that the benefits of risk assessment, genetic counseling, genetic testing, and interventions are moderate. For women whose personal or family history or ancestry is not associated with an increased risk for harmful mutations in the BRCA1/2 genes, there is adequate evidence that the benefits of risk assessment, genetic counseling, genetic testing, and interventions are small to none. Regardless of family or personal history, the USPSTF found adequate evidence that the overall harms of risk assessment, genetic counseling, genetic testing, and interventions are small to moderate. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION The USPSTF recommends that primary care clinicians assess women with a personal or family history of breast, ovarian, tubal, or peritoneal cancer or who have an ancestry associated with BRCA1/2 gene mutations with an appropriate brief familial risk assessment tool. Women with a positive result on the risk assessment tool should receive genetic counseling and, if indicated after counseling, genetic testing. (B recommendation) The USPSTF recommends against routine risk assessment, genetic counseling, or genetic testing for women whose personal or family history or ancestry is not associated with potentially harmful BRCA1/2 gene mutations. (D recommendation)

show abstract

Effects of counseling Ashkenazi Jewish women about breast cancer risk.

Cited by 19 publications

References 35 publications

A Systematic Review of the Impact of Genetic Counseling on Risk Perception Accuracy

A Systematic Review of the Impact of Genetic Counseling on Risk Perception Accuracy

A systematic review of the effect of individualized risk communication strategies on screening uptake and its psychological predictors: the role of psychology theory

Risk Assessment, Genetic Counseling, and Genetic Testing forBRCA-Related Cancer

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About