Parental Decision Making Regarding the Disclosure or Nondisclosure of a Mutation-Positive BRCA1/2 Test Result to Minors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: To gain insight into parental decision making regarding the disclosure or nondisclosure of a mutation-positive BRCA1/2 test result to minors. . RESEARCH APPROACH: A qualitative study based on Heidegger hermeneutic phenomenology was undertaken to explore the lived experience of parental decision making regarding high-risk BRCA1/2 disclosure. . SETTING: The study's recruitment site was a western Canadian hereditary breast and ovarian cancer clinic. . PARTICIPANTS: Fifteen female mutation-positive BRCA1/2 carriers who had at least one child aged 6-18 years. . METHODOLOGIC APPROACH: The use of a demographic questionnaire, semistructured interviews, and conversation summaries were employed to gain an understanding of participants' lived experience. van Manen's selective approach was used to conduct a thematic analysis. . FINDINGS: Collectively, parents wanted clinicians to discuss implications of disclosing and not disclosing a mutation-positive BRCA1/2 test result to minors in greater detail. The findings were categorized under the following emergent themes. CONCLUSIONS: Participants' stories identified the need for auxiliary support pertaining to the decision-making process and suggested ways in which parental support may be coordinated. . INTERPRETATION: Oncology nurses with advanced genetics training should assist mutation-positive BRCA1/2 carriers in meeting their genetic risk information needs; this requires nurses to stay informed about a multitude of issues that affect this population of patients.
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 | 0.011 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".