Psychosocial Interventions for Women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 Mutation: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This scoping review aimed to explore the effectiveness of psychological and psychoeducational interventions for BRCA mutation carriers. Four electronic bibliographic databases were searched. After review, 23 articles that described or assessed forms of an additional psychosocial intervention for individuals with a BRCA mutation were identified and included. Intervention types discussed in the articles were telephone-based peer-to-peer counselling (5), online communities (4), in-person group counselling (8), and one-day sessions (6). Outcomes investigated within the articles included psychosocial outcomes (18), satisfaction (8), health behaviours (7), and knowledge (5). The included studies suggested that telephone-based peer-to-peer counselling and online communities improve patient knowledge and psychosocial functioning and can overcome challenges such as scheduling and travel associated with in-person support groups, but may have challenges with recruitment and retainment of participants. Group in-person education sessions satisfied the need amongst BRCA1/2 carriers in terms of accessing necessary information regarding cancer risk assessment and management; however, the impact of group education sessions on psychological outcomes was variable across the included studies. Overall, all the forms of intervention described in this scoping review were well-received by participants; some have been shown to reduce distress, depression, and anxiety.
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 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".