Does breast cancer genetic counselling meet women's expectations? A qualitative study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
A high demand exists in the United Kingdom for breast cancer genetic counselling. Due to the disease's high incidence, many women who received such counselling are eventually assessed as not being at high genetic risk. This study elicits the experiences and perceptions of such women, as little research has been conducted. A qualitative interview-based study was conducted in the north-east of Scotland with a sample of women at low to moderate risk of developing breast cancer, who had received genetic counselling. The interviews addressed the women's reasons for attending genetic counselling, their prior expectations and their perceptions of the outcomes of counselling. A thematic analysis was conducted to identify the key themes. The women themselves were mainly responsible for raising concerns regarding family history and, in general, sought information and reassurance about their own risk. Whilst they generally felt reassured after counselling, many did not understand the information they had been given and some continued to overestimate their own risk of disease. For many an important motivation for seeking counselling was to receive (more frequent) mammography screening, for which they perceived the genetic counsellors as gatekeepers. Some also expected a genetic test. The study findings were consistent with much of the published literature. Genetic counsellors must understand that genetic information, especially the risk as perceived, is not always well understood. This in turn may influence the further communication of risk information within the family. Also, people coming forward for genetic counselling may not be aware of some of the unintended consequences of such counselling, such as, for example, having to declare information to insurance companies and/or (potential) employers. If primary care practitioners are the main route through which people reach genetic counsellors, these professionals need to be kept up to date on issues related to genetics, and genetic testing and counselling.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».