Women's attitudes toward preventive strategies for hereditary breast or ovarian carcinoma differ from one country to another
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The authors investigated the acceptability to women of the preventive strategies available for dealing with hereditary breast/ovarian carcinoma in France, the United Kingdom, and Canada, countries selected because of their cultural differences. The authors aimed to discover the existence of specific factors that may affect acceptability of these preventative measures. METHODS: A cross-sectional, multicenter survey was conducted in Marseilles, France (n = 141), in Manchester, England (n = 130), and in Montreal, Quebec (n = 84). All of the women attending cancer genetic clinics for the first time because of a family history of breast-ovarian carcinoma completed a self-administered questionnaire before their clinic consultation. RESULTS: Variations in responses to different preventative options presented on the questionnaire were seen within the sample of patients considered as a whole. The highest levels of acceptability were obtained for mammographic screening (87%) and chemoprevention (58%). In contrast, prophylactic oophorectomy and prophylactic mastectomy were thought to be acceptable at an early age (before 35 years), an age associated with the highest prophylactic efficacy, by only 19% and 16% of the respondents, respectively. After multivariate adjustment, the statistical data showed that the British respondents were more in favor of oophorectomy (P < 0.0001) and more in favor of chemoprevention than the French (P < 0.001) and the Canadian respondents (P < 0.001). The British (overall adjusted response [OR(adj)] = 3.9; P < 0.001) and Canadian respondents (OR(adj) = 3; P < 0.01) were more in favor of prophylactic mastectomy than the French. The cumulated acceptability of mammography before the age of 40 years was found to be greater in the French (OR(adj) = 2.8; P < 0.01) and Canadian (OR(adj) = 3.1; P < 0.05) samples than in the British sample. CONCLUSION: These results demonstrated the existence of international variations in the acceptability of the preventive strategies available for women at risk for hereditary breast/ovarian carcinoma. Therefore, these results suggested that when establishing medical recommendations or planning public health interventions, physicians must integrate the population's perception of advantages and drawbacks with the patient's individual decision making.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".