Which factors predict proposal and uptake of psychological counselling after BRCA1/2 test result disclosure?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to prospectively determine the factors contributing to whether unaffected women from BRCA1/2 families reported that clinicians proposed psychological consultations and that they had attended these consultations during the genetic testing process. METHODS: A prospective study was performed on a national cohort, using self-administered questionnaires to determine the rates of proposal and use of psychological services at the time of BRCA1/2 test result disclosure (N = 533) and during the first year after disclosure (N = 478) among unaffected French women from BRCA1/2 families who had undergone genetic testing for BRCA1/2. Multivariate adjustment was carried out using logistic regression models fitted using generalized estimation equations, with the genetic testing centre as the clustering variable. RESULTS: At the time of BRCA1/2 test result disclosure, a psychological consultation was proposed by cancer geneticists to 72% and 32% of the carriers (N = 232) and noncarriers (N = 301), respectively (p < 0.001). One year after disclosure, 21% of the carriers had consulted a psychologist, versus 9% of the noncarriers (p < 0.001). Both the proposal and the uptake depended on the women's BRCA1/2 mutation carrier status (proposal adjusted odds ratio (AOR): 4.9; 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.4-7.2; uptake AOR: 2.2; 95% CI 1.2-4.0), their level of education (proposal AOR: 1.7; 95% CI 1.1-2.7; uptake AOR: 4.5; 95% CI 1.7-12.1) and the distress they experienced about their genetic test results (proposal AOR: 1.02; 95% CI 1.01-1.03; uptake AOR: 1.04; 95% CI 1.02-1.06) CONCLUSIONS: Determinants of the proposal/uptake of psychological consultations in the BRCA1/2 testing process highlight the need for inventive strategies to reach the different types of women's profiles.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".