Exploring the role of a multidisciplinary hereditary gynecologic oncology clinic in epithelial ovarian cancer risk‐reducing surgical decision‐making practices: A mixed‐methods study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Individuals that have gynecologic reproductive organs with pathogenic variants in BRCA1 or BRCA2 ("BRCA-positive") have an increased risk of developing high-grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC). The majority of HGSOC develops in the fallopian tubes and later spreads to the ovaries and peritoneal cavity. Therefore, risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) is recommended for those who are BRCA-positive to preventatively remove their ovaries and fallopian tubes. The Hereditary Gynecology Clinic (HGC) is a provincial program in Winnipeg, Canada, that specifically targets care to the unique needs of such individuals through an interdisciplinary team of gynecological oncologists, menopause specialists, and registered nurses. A mixed-methods study design was used to explore the decision-making processes of these BRCA-positive individuals who have been recommended (or who completed) RRSO and experiences with healthcare providers at the HGC influenced this decision. Individuals who are BRCA-positive without a previous diagnosis of HGSOC and who had previously received genetic counselling were recruited from the HGC and the provincial cancer genetics program (Shared Health Program of Genetics & Metabolism). Forty-three people completed a survey and 15 participated in an in-depth interview about their experiences and decisions surrounding RRSO. Surveys were analyzed to compare scores on validated scales related to decision-making and cancer-related worry. Qualitative interviews were transcribed, coded, and analyzed using interpretive description. Participants described the complex decisions faced by those who are BRCA-positive, which are intertwined with life experiences and circumstances including age, marital status, and family disease history. Participants interpreted their HGSOC risk through a personalized "lens" of contextual factors that impacted perceptions about the practical and emotional implications of RRSO and the need for surgery. Mean scores on validated scales evaluating the HGC's impact on decisional outcomes and preparedness for decision-making about RRSO were not significant, indicating that the HGC played a supportive role, rather than helping with decision-making itself. Therefore, we present a novel framework that consolidates the various influences on decision-making and connects them to the psychological and practical implications of RRSO in the context of the HGC. Strategies for improving support, decisional outcomes, and the overall experiences of individuals who are BRCA-positive attending the HGC are also described.
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 | 0.013 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".