Communication about hereditary cancer risk to offspring: A systematic review of children's perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The present review describes how children experience hereditary cancer risk communication within the family. METHODS: Searches for studies between 1990 and 2020 on PubMed and EBSCO were undertaken, and 15 studies met the inclusion criteria, following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The findings informed: (1) how, when and what is discussed about hereditary cancer risk in the family; (2) how does family communication about hereditary cancer risk impact children on psychosocial and behavioral outcomes; (3) what are the child's preferences regarding hereditary cancer risk communication within the family. RESULTS: Disclosure is done mostly by both parents, or mothers only, which is in accordance with the children's preferences. Children value open communication about cancer risk with their parents, although they report experiences of fear, surprise, feeling unhappy, and concern about the increased risk of cancer. Regardless of the method of disclosure, children may be particularly sensitive to their parent's emotional state at the time of disclosure, and they learn from their parents' experiences the potential implications of cancer risk. Children also report that it would be helpful to learn more about genetic cancer syndromes via written materials, and/or meet a genetic counselor. CONCLUSIONS: Children rely on their parents as the primary models of the hereditary cancer experience. Therefore, parents play a central role in the psychological adjustment of children. Findings point to the relevance of family-centered care in hereditary cancer risk that targets not only the mutation carrier individually but also their children and partners.
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 | 0.006 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".