Falling through the cracks. Women's experiences of ineligibility for genetic testing for risk of breast cancer.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe experiences of women seeking information about their risk of hereditary breast cancer who fail to meet strict eligibility criteria for genetic counseling and testing. DESIGN: Qualitative descriptive study. SETTING: Hereditary cancer program in western Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Women who had received notification of their ineligibility for referral for hereditary breast cancer risk assessment (n = 20) and some of their referring physicians (n = 10). Of 28 attempted contacts, five women had moved, one declined the invitation to participate, and two could not be interviewed because of scheduling conflicts. Ten of 20 physicians declined the invitation to participate. METHOD: In-depth, open-ended telephone interviews were conducted. Transcribed interviews were systematically analyzed to identify salient themes. MAIN FINDINGS: Three themes emerged. The first theme, "It's always on your mind," points to the profound concern about breast cancer that underlies women's experiences in seeking genetic testing. The second theme, "A test is a test," reflects women's beliefs that the test was relatively simple and similar to other medical tests in that it would provide a definitive answer. The third theme, "Falling through the cracks," captures the experience of ineligibility. Women reacted with a range of emotional responses and were left frustrated in their search for more specific information about their personal risk for breast cancer. Although women were encouraged to contact their physicians, few did. CONCLUSION: These findings point to the psychological consequences in women who seek genetic testing for risk of breast cancer when they are told they are ineligible and they are not given adequate information and support.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".