Theory‐based behavior change intervention to increase uptake of risk‐reducing salpingo‐oophorectomy in women with a <i>BRCA1</i> or <i>BRCA2</i> pathogenic variant: The <scp>PREVENT</scp> randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective To evaluate the effect of a theory‐based behavioral intervention delivered by genetic counselors on the uptake of risk‐reducing salpingo‐oophorectomy (RRSO) at 12 and 24 months by women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic variant (PV) compared to women who received usual care. Methods In this two‐arm, multi‐site randomized controlled trial participants were randomized to receive a theoretically‐guided behavioral telephone intervention or usual care. Outcome data were collected at 12 and 24 months. Participants in the usual care arm were offered the intervention after 12 months. Results Data on 107 participants were included in the analysis. There was no significant difference in the proportion of women who had a RRSO by 1 year (28.6%‐ intervention; 22.9%‐ usual care ( p = 0.54)). At 1 year, women who received the intervention had significantly lower mean decisional conflict ( p interaction <0.001) and a higher mean knowledge score at one‐year compared to usual care ( p interaction <0.001). At 2 years, 53.9% of participants in the intervention arm had RRSO compared to 32.6% in usual care ( p = 0.05). Conclusions A theory‐based behavioral intervention delivered by genetic counselors to women with a BRCA PV who chose not to have the recommended RRSO was effective at reducing decisional conflict and increasing knowledge in women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 PV.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".