Seeking Balance: Decision Support Needs of Women Without Cancer and a Deleterious <i>BRCA1</i> or <i>BRCA2</i> Mutation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recommendations for women with a deleterious BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene mutation include complex medical approaches related to cancer risk reduction and detection. Current science has not yet fully elucidated decision support needs that women face when living with medical consequences associated with known hereditary cancer risk. The purpose of this study was to describe health communication and decision support needs in healthy women with BRCA1/2 gene mutations. The original researchers completed an interpretive secondary qualitative data analysis of 23 phenomenological narratives collected between 2008 and 2010. The Ottawa Decision Support and Patient Centered Communication frameworks guided the study design and analysis. Women described a pattern wherein breast and ovarian cancer risk, health related recommendations and decisions, and personal values were prioritized over time based on life contexts. Knowing versus acting on cancer risk was not a static process but an ongoing balancing act of considering current and future personal and medical values, further compounded by the complexity of recommendations. Women shared stories of anticipatory, physical and psychosocial consequences of the decision making experience. The findings have potential to generate future research questions and guide intervention development. Importantly, findings indicate a need for ongoing, long-term, support from genetics professionals and decision support interventions, which challenges the current practice paradigm.
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 | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".