↓ Skip to main content

Adherence to Recommended Risk Management among Unaffected Women with a BRCA Mutation

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Genetic Counseling, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
83 Mendeley
Title
Adherence to Recommended Risk Management among Unaffected Women with a BRCA Mutation
Published in
Journal of Genetic Counseling, June 2016
DOI 10.1007/s10897-016-9981-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Adam H. Buchanan, Corrine I. Voils, Joellen M. Schildkraut, Catherine Fine, Nora K. Horick, P. Kelly Marcom, Kristi Wiggins, Celette Sugg Skinner

Abstract

Identifying unaffected women with a BRCA mutation can have a significant individual and population health impact on morbidity and mortality if these women adhere to guidelines for managing cancer risk. But, little is known about whether such women are adherent to current guidelines. We conducted telephone surveys of 97 unaffected BRCA mutation carriers who had genetic counseling at least one year prior to the survey to assess adherence to current guidelines, factors associated with adherence, and common reasons for performing and not performing recommended risk management. More than half of participants reported being adherent with current risk management recommendations for breast cancer (69 %, n = 67), ovarian cancer (82 %, n = 74) and both cancers (66 %, n = 64). Older age (OR = 10.53, p = 0.001), white race (OR = 8.93, p = 0.019), higher breast cancer genetics knowledge (OR = 1.67, p = 0.030), higher cancer-specific distress (OR = 1.07, p = 0.002) and higher physical functioning (OR = 1.09, p = 0.009) were significantly associated with adherence to recommended risk management for both cancers. Responses to open-ended questions about reasons for performing and not performing risk management behaviors indicated that participants recognized the clinical utility of these behaviors. Younger individuals and those with lower physical functioning may require targeted interventions to improve adherence, perhaps in the setting of long-term follow-up at a multi-disciplinary hereditary cancer clinic.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 83 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 83 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 12%
Student > Master 10 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 11%
Other 8 10%
Student > Postgraduate 7 8%
Other 13 16%
Unknown 26 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 20%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 10%
Psychology 6 7%
Social Sciences 4 5%
Other 9 11%
Unknown 31 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 July 2016.
All research outputs
#18,465,704
of 22,880,230 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Genetic Counseling
#939
of 1,145 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#256,388
of 340,767 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Genetic Counseling
#25
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,880,230 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,145 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 340,767 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.