| Title |
Clinical follow-up and breast and ovarian cancer screening of true BRCA1/2 noncarriers: a qualitative investigation
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Genetics in Medicine, November 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1038/gim.2015.135 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sylvie Pelletier, Nora Wong, Zaki El Haffaf, William D. Foulkes, Jocelyne Chiquette, Pavel Hamet, Jacques Simard, Michel Dorval |
| Abstract |
Most women from BRCA1/2 mutation-positive families who did not inherit the familial mutation have breast and ovarian cancer risks similar to those of women of the same age in the general population. However, recent studies suggest that some of these noncarriers may exhibit screening practices that may be considered as excessive compared to general population screening guidelines. Reasons for such tendencies remain largely unknown. This study aims to better understand how the implications of a noncarrier status are explained to these women and how their own realization of this status affects their screening behaviors. A qualitative study was conducted with five focus groups (n = 28) in Quebec City and Montreal, Canada. Thematic analysis of the discussions highlighted four major themes: (i) acquiring a noncarrier identity takes place progressively; (ii) noncarriers show a range of opinions about screening; (iii) noncarriers have mixed feelings about the follow-up by their physicians and gynecologists; and (iv) noncarriers need more information in a context where genetics progresses ever more rapidly. Our results provide novel insights regarding the physician-patient interaction and the organizational aspects of the health-care system that may significantly impact the cancer screening practices of BRCA1/2 noncarriers.Genet Med advance online publication 05 November 2015Genetics in Medicine (2015); doi:10.1038/gim.2015.135. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 60% |
| Unknown | 2 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 80% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 16 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 24% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 18% |
| Other | 1 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 6% |
| Professor | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 3 | 18% |
| Unknown | 4 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 4 | 24% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 24% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 18% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 6% |
| Design | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 4 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 12 November 2015.
All research outputs
#14,536,007
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Genetics in Medicine
#2,326
of 2,943 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#136,177
of 296,930 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genetics in Medicine
#35
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,943 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.0. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% 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 296,930 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.