Medical Decision Making among Individuals with a Variant of Uncertain Significance in a Hereditary Cancer Gene and those with a CHEK2 Pathogenic Variant
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Despite national guidelines, women with a BRCA VUS or CHEK2 pathogenic variant are choosing to have risk-reducing surgeries such as bilateral mastectomies which are not aligned with their level of cancer risk based on genetic test results alone. Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with 6 women with a BRCA VUS and 12 with a CHEK2 pathogenic variant exploring the factors influencing their decision-making process when considering medical management options. Patients from a cancer registry agreed to a recorded telephone interview. Coding was performed using the main constructs from the Ottawa Patient Decision Guide including: knowledge, uncertainty, values, and support. Iterative analysis was used to identify emerging themes.\nAnalysis of the interviews revealed overlapping of the four constructs in the decision-making process. The knowledge sought to make medical management decisions was driven by the uncertainty associated with the genetic test results. Participants often contextualized their risk by building on the risk associated with genetic test results with family history, variant re-interpretation, and the knowledge that the risks associated with other genes may be higher. Patients generally made the decision they thought was best for them, even though it was more difficult if that decision was not supported by healthcare providers, friends, or family. When faced with uncertain cancer risks and presented with options for medical management, values were weighed against the negatives of each option. Often mental health was prioritized over the negatives associated with ‘removing body parts’.\nThese findings offer a look into the decisional needs of patients such as accurate knowledge, certainty, decisional support, and attention to personal values. Better understanding of the unmet needs of these patients and working to rectify them through provider education, outreach, counseling strategies to mitigate uncertainty, and research on how to best address and identify each patient’s specific decisional needs can contribute to the goal of risk-appropriate and values-based decision-making. With a better understanding of patients’ decisional needs, healthcare providers can better advocate for tailored counseling sessions which explore and address specific patient needs to help them make informed, risk-appropriate, and value-based medical management decisions.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,005 | 0,014 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,006 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».