Evidence-based familial risk explanations in cancer genetic counselling

Thomassen, Gøril; Sarangi, Srikant

doi:10.1080/13698575.2012.711813

Cited by 12 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…44 We observed that the PCPs in this study adopted many of the communication techniques used by genetics professionals, reviewed recently by Paul and colleagues. 51 Similar to observations of genetic counselors, 56 PCPs in this study used individual patient and family histories to calibrate how they interpreted the risk of a given genomic result. When faced with genomic results that were seemingly discrepant from patient or family history, PCPs tended to reject the genomic information, either dismissing it outright or using hedging language to soften the rejection and convey the uncertainty in their interpretation and management.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How Primary Care Providers Talk to Patients about Genome Sequencing Results: Risk, Rationale, and Recommendation

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How Primary Care Providers Talk to Patients about Genome Sequencing Results: Risk, Rationale, and Recommendation

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…20 ) and the process of CGT communication (e.g., return of results; 21%; see ref. 21 ). Illustrative examples of studies in each CGT continuum phase, organized by type of study design, are provided in Supplemental Box 1.…”

Section: Cgt Continuum Phasesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cancer communication research in the era of genomics and precision medicine: a scoping review

Kaphingst

Peterson

Zhao

et al. 2019

Genetics in Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Effective use of genetic and genomic data in cancer prevention and treatment depends on adequate communication with patients and the public. Although relevant empirical work has emerged, the scope and outcomes of this communication research have not been characterized. We conducted a comprehensive scoping review of recent published research (2010-2017) on communication of cancer-related genetic and genomic testing (CGT) information. Searches in six databases revealed 9243 unique records; 513 papers were included. Most papers utilized an observational quantitative design; fewer utilized an experimental design. More attention has been paid to outcomes of CGT results disclosure than to decision making regarding CGT uptake or the process of results disclosure. Psychosocial outcomes were most common across studies. This literature has a strong focus on BRCA1/2, with few papers focused on Lynch syndrome or next-generation technologies. Women, Caucasians, older adults, and those of higher socioeconomic status were overrepresented. Research gaps identified include the need for studies on the process of CGT communication; examining behavioral, decision making, and communication outcomes; and inclusion of diverse populations. Addressing these gaps can help improve the use of genomics in cancer control and reduce disparities in access to and use of CGT.

show abstract

“…For example, in research with asymptomatic Israeli women testing positively for the BRCA1/2 mutation, Dagan and Goldblatt () found that knowledge of genetic risk positioned participants within a ‘twilight zone’ between health and sickness, spurring their plans for risk management drawn in part from their mothers’ experiences of cancer. Two studies from Norway, emphasise how difficult it might be to engage in decision making, when medical knowledge of the meanings of genetic test results may be inconclusive, and a cautious framing of evidence is employed by medical professionals (Thomassen and Sarangi ). In the cases of uncertain genetic status, family history and past clinical experience may be drawn on more heavily than numerical (risk) information provided by genetic testing (Aasen and Skolbekken ).…”

Section: Cancer Risk and Responsibilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

The sociology of cancer: a decade of research

Kerr

Ross

Jacques

et al. 2018

Sociology Health & Illness

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Biomedicine is often presented as the driving force behind improvements in cancer care, with genomics the latest innovation poised to change the meaning, diagnosis, treatment, prevention and lived experience of cancer. Reviewing sociological analyses of a diversity of patient and practitioner experiences and accounts of cancer during the last decade (2007–17), we explore the experiences of, approaches to and understandings of cancer in this period. We identify three key areas of focus: (i) cancer patient experiences and identities; (ii) cancer risk and responsibilities and (iii) bioclinical collectives. We explore these sociological studies of societal and biomedical developments and how sociologists have sought to influence developments in cancer identities, care and research. We end by suggesting that we extend our understanding of innovations in the fields of cancer research to take better account of these wider social and cultural innovations, together with patients, activists' and sociologists' contributions therein.

show abstract

Evidence-based familial risk explanations in cancer genetic counselling

Cited by 12 publications

References 35 publications

How Primary Care Providers Talk to Patients about Genome Sequencing Results: Risk, Rationale, and Recommendation

How Primary Care Providers Talk to Patients about Genome Sequencing Results: Risk, Rationale, and Recommendation

Cancer communication research in the era of genomics and precision medicine: a scoping review

The sociology of cancer: a decade of research

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About